LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, June
21, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This evening, 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 4.(h)(1)(a) on page 40 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to begin
by asking some questions on the Workforce 2000 program. What I would like to
get from the minister is the list of consultants who have been working on the
program. Would she have access to such a
list? Could she give me more information
about the consultants?
*
(2005)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, we do not have a list of the consultants that were
used. They were available when the
employers who engaged them submitted an invoice, but we have not kept a listing
that would be available of exactly who those people are on an ongoing basis
because they are engaged by the employer.
I can say to the member though that a
great deal of the training is delivered by the public sector as well. That would be through our community colleges
as one vehicle.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, would the minister
endeavour to compile a list for me of the consultants and the amount of
contracts in dollars that each one has partaken in? My understanding is that we are talking about
a small number of consultants here. A
consultant who has been involved in this program has told me that he personally
has put together a couple of these and sold them to the employer, sold the idea
to them, and has really taken the thing under his wing and carried it. So I think it should not be that difficult
for the minister to provide us with a list of the consultants who are actively
involved in this program and their list of their clients. You know who they are.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to tell
the member that this is a huge job he is asking for. There have been over 900 contracts. Within those 900 contracts several are
clustered, in terms of several participants.
There may have been 15 participants for instance within one particular
contract. It will require going back
through the invoices. It will, in fact,
be a very major piece of work which the staff will be required to do.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess I would also
be interested in knowing the type of training and the results of the training
that some of these people have been involved in here. I recall the former member for Rossmere and
many others in this House over the years have made some observations about the
role of industry, trade and commerce and the role of government subsidies to
businesses in general. I know there are
a lot of businesses out there who do believe in a level playing field and do
not believe that you should be subsidizing one at the expense of another.
I do not know if the members in the
Conservative caucus here really understand what this government is doing and
whether in fact they would agree with a lot of these monies that are being
spent here. Essentially, at a time of
restraint, a time of huge burgeoning government deficits, the government is
handing out money here to companies which are, by and large, solvent companies,
companies that are making money and have been around a long time. I would question the validity in the concept
of giving money to some of these companies.
*
(2010)
Having said that, I am interested in
knowing the type of training and the results of the training that several of
these companies have been embarked on.
For example, Dairy Queen is one of the companies that received a grant. I do not expect the minister to be able to
tell me all of this information right at the moment, but I would be interested
in knowing on what basis Dairy Queen qualifies for a taxpayers' subsidy here
for training‑‑Stapon 1st realty; Robin's Donuts; Air Manitoba;
Arthur Andersen, a very large accounting firm as the minister knows; Bachman
and Associates, a very successful real estate firm in town; and several other
real estate firms; several insurance firms; several legal firms, for example,
Wilder Wilder and Langtry, not a firm that I have ever thought had any financial
difficulties.
I want to say that if a firm plans to
train staff and so on, most firms that I know are only too willing to train the
staff and embark on those programs.
Wilson Furniture, Zipper Courier received fairly large grants. So I would like to know a little bit more
about these grants.
Now there is one in particular, and I know
the members are waiting for me to ask about this one so maybe we should get
this one out of the road first. Elmwood
Motors has received a grant. Once again I would be interested in knowing if the
minister could determine for me at this moment what the nature of the grant was
and whether it was successful in doing what it was designed to do.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the member seems to have
some difficulty with the idea of Workforce 2000 and with the concept which is a
human resource training concept, and which also is in a partnership.
I can tell the member today, as I have
told the House in the past, that when I attended the labour market ministers'
meeting in January, the federal minister and all provincial ministers
recognized that government alone cannot provide all of the training. There needs to be a sharing and a partnership
with the private sector to bring forward some training programs which will
assist, No. 1, the employees of that particular firm or business or industry or
labour group, so that those people will have improved skills, and with those
improved skills be able to maintain their position within that particular
organization. That improvement also provides an amount of mobility on behalf of
people who are working in those firms or business or industries or labour
groups.
In addition, it allows for the business,
industry or labour group who is the employer to also maintain a
competitiveness, so that it will have employees working at a skill level in
which they are competitive with others across the province or across
Manitoba has moved, through the Workforce
2000 program, to enter into a sharing of the cost of training with employers to
the benefit of the people working in the business, industry or labour area as
well as to the firms, so that there is a competitiveness. I can say to the member that we recognize
that
*
(2015)
The member has asked a specific question
around Elmwood Motors in addition to a number of others where he has wondered
about the training. I wonder, I guess I
would question him to say: Does he have
any problem with those people who would work at an establishment such as a
Dairy Queen or Robin's Donuts? Do those
people not deserve the kind of training that would be available? Is there some reason that those individuals
should be denied the opportunity to have a training program in which there is a
cost‑sharing?
In terms of Elmwood Motors, Elmwood Motors
participated in a 14‑business training project to undertake 112 hours of
automotive electronics training for one employee. The project was approved and the contribution
from the employer was $1,500. So Elmwood
was a participant in a training contract; it was one of 14. The Elmwood Motors employee left the
employment with Elmwood Motors after the first session. As a consequence, Workforce 2000 provided
$375 of a total $500 incurred by the employer for one session. The reimbursement was at a 75 percent cost‑share
between the employer and Workforce 2000.
The employee attended approximately 32 hours of training and then left
the employment of Elmwood Motors. The
employee continued, that the training was valuable and that he would be
continuing on at his own expense.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
indicate to me the nature of the training that the person received and also
endeavour to release the contract to us, since this company is no longer in
existence evidently?
Mrs. Vodrey: The type of training was in the automotive
trades, and it focused on computerized fuel injection. I would say to the member that the release of
the contract is‑‑I believe the contract is a document which was for
our internal use, but if the member has a question about it, I will try and
answer that.
Mr. Maloway: I have another question on another one of the
participants in the program. About
$3,200 was given to Stress Management Group.
Could you tell me what the Stress Management Group is and the nature of
their grant and what they did with it?
We probably need it around here.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the Stress Management Group
was part of a contract which took place in the year 1991‑92. Therefore, I
do not have available exactly the details of that particular contract.
Mr. Maloway: Could the minister then perhaps take this as
notice and get back to me at a later point, within reason, of course, with this
information as to what the nature of the contract was with this group?
Mrs. Vodrey: I will do that.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Chair, the minister talked about
the criteria for the program, and I noticed that another group that got a fair
amount of money was the pro‑life group, got $8,700. Now I thought this
was primarily businesses that were supposed to be eligible for this. What is the pro‑life group?
*
(2020)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that we did not fund the pro‑life
group; in fact we funded The Prolific Group, and that was a contract, again, in
1991‑92.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I noticed some
financial corporations got grants, Midland Walwyn for one, $10,000, and these
are, as people know, fairly large securities firms, and I believe there were a
couple of other securities firms that received the maximum. I believe the maximum was $10,000 under this
program. Once again, I have never
thought of Midland Walwyn as requiring subsidies from the taxpayers for
anything, for that matter, but I am just wondering what the nature of their
grant was and what the results of it have been so far.
Mrs. Vodrey: This contract was for computerized
marketing. It was for a very specialized
type of marketing. It was also done for
another similar type of company, and for that company it did result in
increased job creation. I am not able to
comment this evening on the increased job creation from this particular firm at
this time.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I have just a little bit of order. It is getting a little loud here, and I
cannot even hear the honourable member for Elmwood or the minister.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in instances where
the minister does not have the information tonight, perhaps she could endeavour
to get back to me at a later point, within reason, on this for information.
Now I do not intend to go through my
complete list here tonight because it would take me all night, but suffice to
say that there are a lot of well‑known companies, well‑heeled
companies, on this list that could well take care of their own training
needs. I do want to ask one last
question of the minister. I note that
Keystone Ford is on here for a $10,000 grant.
I know that particular firm is one of the Minister of Finance's
favourite companies around town, and he seemed to speak quite highly of
them. So I would like to ask the
minister what the 20 trainees at Keystone were doing over the past while with
this grant?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this was to provide
training in professional selling skills to 20 existing employees. A total of 160 training hours was delivered
in five separate four‑training‑days.
The member has asked me to repeat it, and
I will. This was to provide training in
professional selling skills to 20 existing employees. A total of 160 training hours was delivered
in five separate four‑day training modules. That was the basis of the training.
*
(2025)
Mr. Maloway: So I think what the minister is telling me
here is that the taxpayers spent $10,000 to train car salesmen on how to sell
cars. Is that what you are telling me?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the member seeks to
minimize the work that is being done by some individuals in that particular
kind of industry. I would tell him that
I do not think he should be minimizing the work that Manitobans do. It may not be the work that he chooses to
do. The work involves marketing, and it
involves leasing.
I can say to the member that perhaps he
would like to look back on what his government did in the automotive
dealerships. I point to wage assistance
for Frontier Toyota, two positions; I point to Pioneer AMC Jeep Renault, one
position; McNaught Pontiac Buick Cadillac, three positions; Prairie Honda,
Portage, one position; Kings Park Plymouth Chrysler, one position; Hyundai Import
Centre, one position; Carter Toyota, two positions; Birchwood Acura, two
positions; Edmondson Chev‑Olds, one position; Precision Toyota, one
position; Steinbach Dodge Chrysler, one position.
It seems that when his party was in power,
they thought that the automotive dealerships were important, and now, when
funded through Workforce 2000, the valuable work of Manitobans, the member has
problems with that.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
tell me who the consultant was on this Keystone Ford contract?
Mrs. Vodrey: The trainer, the consultant, was Comack and
Associates.
Mr. Maloway: I once again recognize that there are other
questioners here, and there is a lot of territory to get through tonight. I would not want to disappoint them.
But I wanted to say that, and what I said
in the beginning, and I happen to agree with the former member for Rossmere,
that I think businesses should be operating on a fairly level playing
field. It is unfair to give one or two
grants in certain areas at the expense of others in the field. I think that if you surveyed business, and
the Chamber of Commerce has surveyed the people and, I think, the businesses by
and large, a lot of these businesses would be embarrassed to be taking this
money and would recognize that on the one hand they meet in conclave and they
talk about how the government should restrain itself and cut its deficit. On the other hand, they are taking money that
could be better used, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) would tell you,
to reduce the deficit or to be given to more needy people in society such as
those students who have had their social assistance cut back and other
disadvantaged people. So I would say
that some of these companies were probably embarrassed to even be on this list.
The minister read out a list of people
that evidently got contracts or got subsidies of type under the previous
government, and I did not say I particularly supported that either at the
time. Nevertheless, I was not in the
majority.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, I can just say to
the member that there is a criteria. The
proposals are reviewed under a criteria, and the criteria does provide training
for Manitobans. The member may not like
the kind of work that they are doing. He
may not think that it is worthy of assistance, but for those people who are
employed in those positions and to whom this training provides an enhancement
in their skill level, then that is the basis of the human resource training
that is offered through Workforce 2000.
I just would like to maybe read into the
record a couple of statements that have been made. Workforce 2000 is the first government
training program that we can use. At last
the government has provided us with something that fits our needs as a small
business. That was Sanderson Tractor in
I also just have one other. I do have one that has just come from the
Carpenters and Joiners of
*
(2030)
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I just wanted to ask, the increase in this
area is about the only area that has increased in this whole area of Youth
Programs, Workforce 2000. Can the
minister indicate how many positions were paid for as a result of this $5
million appropriation‑‑or subsidized?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, is the member asking how
many Manitobans have been trained, which I have put on the record already? It is over 54,000. Is the member asking about staffing in the
department? I would ask him if he could
clarify his question.
Mr. Plohman: No, I was just asking how many were subsidized
in training this past year as compared to the year before. You mention the 54,000, what was the figure
the year before?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in 1992‑93, in terms
of small and medium business training incentives, the numbers are 3,240 and that
is compared to 1991‑92 at 2,832.
In the payroll tax refund, in '92‑93 the number is 28,455; and in
1991‑92, 12,827.
In the industry‑wide, 1,870, that is
in '92‑93; '91‑92, 2,014.
Mr. Plohman: When the minister is using the figure 54,000,
she is comparing it to what figure, if she was giving a comparable figure?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, that is the total
cumulative figure since the program began in 1991 to date.
Mr. Plohman: So it is not 54,000 this past year; it is
54,000 over two years.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it is a cumulative figure of Manitobans
trained under the Workforce 2000 program.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister might have made herself
more clear when she uses that figure, because it is misleading to say that that
is how many are being trained. It sounds
like an annual training, and I just point out to the minister is would be‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
I would ask the honourable member to choose his words very
carefully. The word
"misleading" does fall under the unparliamentary list, and I would
ask him to choose his words carefully, so we do not end up in any unnecessary
points of order at this time.
Mr. Plohman: I think we have had the only point of order
we are going to get, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Thank you.
* * *
Mr. Deputy
Chairperson: Item 4.(h)(1)(a)
Salaries.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
I wonder, just on Workforce 2000, as part of the government's overall training
strategy, if the minister could tell us whether there is any co‑ordination
between what is occurring with Workforce 2000 and the training that is being
done under the training credits that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has
offered to business.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we administer that payroll
tax refund for training. We attest to
the nature of the training through the Minister of Finance to allow him then to
provide that credit.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so if you attest for
it, then can you produce a list of the kinds of training, the amount of
training that has been delivered under that tax credit program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the year 1992‑93,
the total applications were 1,415. In
that year, 64 percent of those applications were in the technological
area. They involved upgrading and
retraining re: new processes and new
technology, areas such as quality assurance, programmable automation, blueprint
reading.
In the Human Resources area, 23 percent of
the applications were in the Human Resources area and they involved areas such
as stress management, presentation skills, motivation goal setting, negotiation
skills and communications; and 13 percent of the applications were in the area
of basic education, continuous learning, literacy, numeracy, problem solving,
critical thinking and learning to learn.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am interested in
that 13 percent doing basic education, literacy and numeracy. These are businesses that are claiming credit
under the tax credit program for training and are doing basic education and
literacy training? Can you give me a
sense of who is doing that and what the circumstances are that would lead to
that?
*
(2040)
Mrs. Vodrey: This particular area encourages larger firms
to enter into a type of generic training.
It is to improve the skill level of their workforce. It is not targeted at the particular work
that they do as a company. The skills
are then transferable skills in the workplace.
Mr. Alcock: The minister had indicated there were 1,415
persons trained under this?
Mrs. Vodrey: That was the total number of
applications. It involved approximately
214 companies, and the number of employees trained estimated in 1992 was
28,455.
Mr. Alcock: The total dollar value claimed?
Mrs. Vodrey: It is estimated in 1992, for those over
28,000 employees, the total value of the training was $7,457,600. That however is not the value of the payroll
refund, that is the value of the training.
Mr. Alcock: What then would be the value claimed?
Mrs. Vodrey: The companies then apply to have that refund
and they are in process. The deadline
for those applications is June 30, '93.
However, we know that one year ago in the fiscal year, the amount was
about $1.5 million, and we could estimate that the value might be about $3
million at the end of '92, but I stress that is an estimation since we do not
have all the applications processed.
Mr. Alcock: For the sake of time or to save some time
perhaps, am I correct in saying the process then is‑‑if a company
has a training program or training which they wish to offer, they sketch out
what it is that they wish to do, they present it to the department and the
department then says, yes, this falls under the general parameters of this and
then they offer it, or do they offer some training and then come to you for an
attestation that it is within the parameters of the program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the process can occur
either way. Sometimes the training has
occurred and then there is the information received in a proposal regarding the
criteria, and at other times the training has not yet occurred and a proposal
is received.
Mr. Alcock: Is any attempt made to differentiate between
training which may be part of the ongoing orientation and in‑house
training programs for companies and something that may be new and an add‑on? Or at the time that this credit was
announced, is it simply possible for a company to take existing training
programs and now claim a credit for them?
Mrs. Vodrey: I think the member's question focused on
basic orientation, and I can tell him that we do not fund basic orientation
under either the payroll refund or under the small to medium training
incentives.
Mr. Alcock: So then can a company come forward and
request grants under Workforce 2000 to do some training at the same time also
to flesh out the nature of the program and support some of the training from
its own resources and claim a credit so that two things provide, perhaps, a
larger base of training in that particular organization that might be
represented by either credit or the Workforce 2000 grant?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Chair, I am having a
little trouble hearing the member. If he
could just repeat the question slightly louder, that would be helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Alcock: Is my mike on?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Just get a little closer to it.
Mr. Alcock: It might be difficult.
Mr. Plohman: Move it closer. You do not have to move yourself closer.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you, John, I appreciate the advice on
this.
The question is this: If you are offering a training program of
some sort and you are able to apply for Workforce 2000, are you also able to
claim a portion of the training that you are offering then under the tax credit
program?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
*
(2050)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, under the Payroll
Tax Refund eligible activities, what a company wished to do would have to meet
the criteria of the Payroll Tax Refund parts of Workforce 2000. It would involve activities such as
innovation, adaptation and participation, they being the key, and training
activities must focus on broadly based transferable and portable skills that
apply to a wide variety of employment situations within both the company and
the provincial workforce. Eligible
training and skill development activities may include upgrading, may include
entry‑level and also retraining activities.
The basic skills training should enable an
employee to function more effectively and to lay down the foundation for
continuous learning and adaptation. We
have spoken tonight about some of the basic education literacy, numeracy and
communication skills as well as the problem solving, critical thinking, the
analytical thinking.
In the area of technical and technological
skills, it includes entry‑level training, skills upgrading and retraining
that will allow employees to develop new skills and to remain in their current
field. Programmable factory automation,
quality assurance, blueprint reading, as I have mentioned, basic and personal
computer operations may be areas where companies would like to apply.
Then in the human relations and general
skills training, it would look to foster individual group and organizational effectiveness,
and I think I mentioned a little bit earlier some of the areas that would fall
under the criteria, such as enhanced presentation skills, career planning,
motivation, goal setting.
Mr. Alcock: I am just trying to clarify parts of this in
my own mind with the minister. So you
can claim a credit for that kind of training, and I want to talk a little bit
more about basic education in a minute, but my central question is: Can you also claim support under the
Workforce 2000 for delivering some of that training?
I am not looking for a scandal here,
double counting or anything like that. I
am just asking a question. Can you
enhance your training program by having some portion of it delivered in the
Workforce 2000 and some portion of it claimed on the tax credit program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I think the
important point to make here is that you cannot count twice, and the
eligibility requirements would be established.
Now, for a larger firm, they might have some of the eligibility covered
under the PTR or the payroll refund.
They might also have a portion under the direct training, but for the
small and medium businesses, it would be under the training incentives. They do not qualify for the payroll reduction
refund, and the ceiling amount is $10,000.
Mr. Alcock: On this question of basic education,
literacy, numeracy and communication skills, I believe at one time those were
reading, writing and arithmetic, were they not?
When is it that a company would offer that
internally as opposed to accessing that sort of training in the adult ed
system?
Mrs. Vodrey: The basic skills training that I have spoken
about this evening involves literacy and numeracy skills, yes, but it also has
involved communication skills, problem‑solving skills, critical and
analytic thinking and learning how to learn, because those have been seen as
essential in improving the productivity. In terms of the literacy, it may also
have a focus of the workplace, literacy being job specific.
Mr. Alcock: I am not being the least bit critical about
this. In fact, I think it is interesting to note that companies are having the
same kind of concern about their employees that you see in general education
and taking the time to provide additional literacy and numeracy skills. My question is how would it occur that a
company would take this on as an in‑house program rather than accessing‑‑I
mean, we offer adult ed programs, literacy and numeracy.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the kinds of
programs that the member has referenced are separate from the workplace, and
this particular kind of workplace training is an integrated type of
programming. It is integrated literacy
with the person's work skills, and it is then a method of providing a full
complement of skills in a program and at one site where the individual is at
the moment.
Mr. Alcock: I can understand a company undertaking work
to help people learn additional skills that relate to a special process or a
special activity within the context of the company, but is it that companies
have found it difficult to access basic education from the community programs?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, this is
training that is more specific to the workplace, and one of the things that we
have been speaking about in answering questions and in talking more generally
is the development of a training culture and the development of a
partnership. This is one way in which
that partnership and the training culture is a very concrete example of that
particular kind of culture.
Mr. Alcock: I suppose, although in lots of circumstances
you have organizations wishing to take on the training when the training may be
better delivered and more efficiently accessed from systems that are expert in
providing the training. It just seems‑‑I
have an understanding that if a company has again something specific or unique
to their processes, in‑house training may be the only route to go to
access that kind of training.
The idea of an organizational culture that
supports lifelong learning, there certainly is a value in that, but it just
struck me as odd that they would go outside of the existing system to provide
basic literacy and numeracy. Had there
been complaints about the current adult ed system or the resources that are
available in the system, or is there some reason why they do not feel that they
could work together with that system in order to access basic education?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that, no, it is not a result of
complaints around the other system. It
has more to do, again, with the development of the training culture and the
sharing that has been spoken about and the partnership in terms of the
development of a training culture.
Mr. Alcock: I will just end then on this section, but I
must say I am impressed with that answer, frankly.
*
(2100)
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I had a few questions about the section of
Workforce 2000 which gives small grants to small‑ or medium‑sized
business. I wonder if the minister could
tell us how many of those grants enabled or were for the purpose of adding
staff? How many new jobs were created by
this program?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell the member that since the
program's inception in May 1991, there have been, under the training incentives
component for the small to medium businesses, new positions for 184
trainees. That is new jobs.
Ms. Friesen: Are those full time or part time, and could
the minister tell us the conditions of those jobs, whether they lasted beyond
the training period or whether they have to last a certain number of months
beyond the training period? One of my
concerns, for example, is that employers may be using this program to screen
potential employees.
Mrs. Vodrey: At the time of an interview and a follow‑up,
which was April 1993, that showed that 81 percent of the new employees were
still employed within that place of employment.
To answer the member as well, they were full‑time positions.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, on the information the
minister originally sent us, Tuxedo Taxi was still involved. I just want to check that the number she is
giving me of 184 new jobs did not include the Tuxedo Taxi jobs.
Mrs. Vodrey: Absolutely not.
Ms.
Friesen: How much of the training
under this program‑‑again, the grants to small‑ and medium‑sized
businesses‑‑is done on work time?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, it is
estimated approximately 85 percent.
Ms.
Friesen: Could the minister tell us
how that was arrived at, how that estimate is arrived at?
Mrs.
Vodrey: That information is based on
the department's knowledge and also review of the files.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, then why
is it an estimate? If it is based on
files and based on the department's knowledge, why is it not precise?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we do not
have all of the files here with us this evening, but we believe that estimation
is really very close to accurate. If we
are looking at a range, it might be 84.5 or 85 percent. We believe it is fairly accurate, but I have
made sure to say it was an estimation because we do not have all files here
before us.
Ms.
Friesen: Could the minister explain
how people are selected within businesses for the training? This is a question I asked in Question
Period; the minister said she would look at it in Estimates.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the
decision is made by the employer. It is
based on the employer's own internal needs, and occasionally training
consultants may help a business industry or labour group determine or assess
what their needs may be, but again the decision is an internal one.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, and when
the application is made for Workforce 2000 money, is there already the
indication made in the proposal of who is to be trained in the sense of labour,
management or technological specialty within the area, and does that form part
of the criteria of the department in accepting or rejecting the application?
Mrs.
Vodrey: On the applications there is
a proposal. Within that proposal it says
who would be trained, the nature of the training, how this training meets the
program criteria. It is all identified
within the proposal, and we would know who would be trained. As I said, there is a set of criteria that
must be met in the larger way in terms of the application being accepted.
Ms.
Friesen: So it does then form part
of a department's acceptance of a particular application. When the minister evaluates those
applications, does she look at the proportion of people who are not being
trained? The reason I ask this question
is for exactly the reasons that I asked it in Question Period was that one of
the criticisms of these types of programs is that they do not provide equality
of access for people in the labour force, and that it is exactly up to the
employer‑‑I see now it is also essentially part of the government's
criteria for acceptance of the programs‑‑that the employer can pick
and choose.
The employee can pick and choose, one
hopes, on the basis of ability to benefit from the training program of the
appropriateness of the training for a particular business, but the employer
when you come right down to the bottom of it is picking and choosing who is
getting the training with public money.
That is a concern, and I am interested to know that it is part of the
government's criterion so that every program which has been accepted, I assume,
has been judged on that basis.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me just reference for the member what the
government criteria is for the training incentives to small and medium
businesses so there is no confusion in the member's mind about which criteria
is which.
In terms of the government's criteria, we
are looking for the introduction of new technologies, equipment and also for
processes. We are also looking at high‑demand
skill‑shortage occupations and high‑demand skills. These are identified, and we spoke about this
when we were looking at the labour market, in one way through the high‑demand
occupations in
So when a proposal is received by
Workforce 2000, we try to look at it in the context of the company's whole
human resource plan and their whole plan in all areas of skill development.
*
(2110)
Ms. Friesen: How does the minister assure herself that
there has been equality of access to training programs, and that there is
equality of access, for example, for women, for visible minorities, for
handicapped people, for people who might otherwise have been excluded from
training, that the training is equally accessible to labour as it is to
management? We have public money in
here, large proportions of public money, and the minister seems quite prepared
for the employer only, and to confirm the employer only, as the selector of
people who can be trained. That seems to
me a misuse of public money.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am sure the member would not have wanted to
have been viewed in any way as unfair in terms of the question which she asked,
or unparliamentary in terms of the question that she asked. So I know that we are having a look at that.
I would say that under wage assistance,
under that training area, the member asked how can we attempt to make sure that
some of the priority groups, she mentioned women, would also be included. I can tell her that we subsidized the wage‑assisted
training at 40 percent for the priority groups as opposed to 30 percent for
other groups.
Ms. Friesen: I am interested to hear that application, but
can she tell me how that has been applied?
Have employers in fact taken up those opportunities that the minister is
offering?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am informed that the employer groups
have taken up the assistance for the priority groups.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what proportion of
the people trained then have fallen into those priority groups?
Mrs. Vodrey: We will have to get that information. I will provide it as soon as possible.
Ms. Friesen: One last question on evaluation. I understood in an earlier exchange with the
member for
I think I heard her say this evening that
there is also a follow‑up telephone call or interview. Is there anything else that is done in the
form of evaluation?
Mrs. Vodrey: Just before I answer that, the member had
asked in a previous question just a concern about labour also being involved in
the sectoral planning initiatives. I
have some information that says of the 36 agreements or initiatives in the 1992‑93
year, 22 projects have employer and employee representation, which I thought
may answer part of the question that the member asked.
In terms of the monitoring process for
Workforce 2000, a monitoring process has been established whereby training
consultants are expected to follow up with employers by phone or in
person. Depending upon the nature of the
project, to confirm whether the employer/employee goals and expectations have
been met, a form is completed, and it is placed in the project file.
All wage‑assisted projects are
monitored every 10 weeks. In the
training assistance for large businesses, the Payroll Tax Refund, the Manitoba
Finance procedures provide for an audit of all Payroll Tax Refund applications
over $20,000 and a random sample audit of those under $20,000.
In the industry‑wide human resource
planning, each project has an evaluation component built into the overall
project description. At the conclusion
of each project, Workforce 2000 business and industry and other government
partners contribute co‑operatively to the development of a final
assessment report.
Program management have identified the
manner of monitoring training as an area of program delivery that requires
review and revision. It is anticipated
that the formative review will be undertaken and will generate recommendations
as to how to more effectively monitor program‑training activity.
Ms. Friesen: Of the 22 that had employer‑employee
participation, how many of those were in the grants to small‑ and medium‑sized
businesses?
Mrs. Vodrey: These were in the industry‑wide
sectoral area.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4.(h) Workforce 2000 and Youth Programs (1)
Workforce 2000 (a) Salaries $980,700‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures
$4,072,500‑‑pass.
(2) Stevenson Aviation Centre (a) Salaries
$296,300‑‑pass.
(b) Other Expenditures $288,500‑‑
Ms. Friesen: Under Stevenson Aviation, as I understand it,
129 people graduated last year.
Could the minister tell us what the
graduation or completion rates are going to be this year, and what is the
change in the number of people in the program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for Stevenson
graduates in 1990‑91, the number was 126; in '91‑92, it was 62; and
in '92‑93, it was 59.
For the statistics '90‑91, it used
to include also the graduates of the Transport Driver Training Program, and
that was in fact double counting. So the
numbers are now reduced to more accurately reflect the graduates.
*
(2120)
Ms. Friesen: What is the anticipated rate this coming
year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we anticipate in this year,
'92‑93, that there will be 28 graduates.
That is because those graduates are in a short course. In the nondestructive testing there will be
no graduates in the aircraft maintenance area because that has just moved from
a three‑year to a four‑year course.
So those graduates will be next year's graduates.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: Is it possible for the minister to say what
that number will be a year from now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, we anticipate the
number will be 23.
Ms. Friesen: There is a reduction in this line and I
wonder if the minister could tell us where the impact is going to be felt. Some
of it is in Capital, I notice. I would
think that would have some significance for a program like this.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, in the Capital
area there was a decrease of $1,000. We
do not predict that $1,000 decrease will have any significant bearing on the
program at all. We have recently
decentralized, as the member knows. Sometimes as well, I can tell her, that
industry will provide some capital, sometimes in the form of new tools.
Ms. Friesen: In terms of employment of people from these
courses, has the minister made any consideration of the changes in the airline
industry that appear to be happening around us and what are the implications of
that for employment in this industry?
Mrs. Vodrey: There has been somewhat of a downturn in this
particular area, and it has resulted in fewer apprentices. However, I can tell
her that we are the only apprenticeship program in
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs. Render):
Line 4.(h)(2)(b) Other Expenditures $288,500‑‑pass.
4.(h)(3) Youth Programs (a) Salaries
$802,200.
Ms. Friesen: Can I ask the minister about CareerStart,
first of all? I understand some of the
CareerStart programs have been quite late in coming to the Employment Centres. At least that has been the case in
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, there was a delay in the announcement of
CareerStart, but I am informed that at the moment we are operating at a full
level, and we are exactly at the point where we had predicted we would be at
this time.
Ms. Friesen: As I understood it, the CareerStart programs
were only made available to students last week in the
*
(2130)
Mrs. Vodrey: The Manitoba CareerStart was announced by
newspaper advertisements April 3, 1993.
The program has been operating since May 3. There was some delay in getting out letters
to the employers, but all employers were phoned to make sure that the process
was kept up to speed.
Ms. Friesen: So at this point, mid‑June, has all the
money for that program been disseminated or allocated?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that all of the CareerStart
money has been allocated. The deadline
for the CareerFocus was last Friday, and those final approvals are being
completed.
Ms. Friesen: Is there a proportion of this money which is reserved
for jobs for high school students?
Mrs. Vodrey: CareerFocus funds may apply to high school
students, but that funding is not targeted specifically to high school
students.
Ms. Friesen: Is there money within any of the other youth
programs which is targeted towards the provision of jobs for high school
students? I do not just mean job
agencies, but jobs.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, as I said, there
are not positions which are specifically targeted to high school students;
however, a number of high school students do in fact obtain positions through
CareerStart and also through the
Ms. Friesen: I am not sure I am getting the difference
between CareerStart and CareerFocus. The
reason I am asking is the minister has just given me a number of, what is it,
350 positions, essentially, in CareerFocus last year and CareerStart is shown
as having approximately 3,500. Is one a
section of the other?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, CareerFocus is a
section of the CareerStart, and the 218 students that I spoke about are in the
CareerFocus section of the CareerStart program.
The CareerFocus is, as I said, a special component of CareerStart, which
provides students with career‑related work experiences that are directly
linked to their studies, which may lead to academic accreditation by the
educational institution that they are attending.
Ms. Friesen: How many positions were filled all together
last year under CareerStart including CareerFocus?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, in the CareerStart
program including CareerFocus, there were 3,134 youth employed. Of those youth,
1,175 of those young people were high school students.
Ms. Friesen: Has there been a change in the payments
offered for CareerStart and CareerFocus students this year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, there has been no
change this year.
Ms. Friesen: What is the payment this year?
Mrs. Vodrey: It is a wage assistance of $2 per hour.
Ms. Friesen: This is the one that was cut from $4 an hour
or more two years ago, or three years ago now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Two years ago, the amount was $2.50 for all
employers, and this year it has remained the same as last year at $2.
Ms. Friesen: The Manitoba Youth Job Centres, which are run
throughout the province‑‑there have been newspaper reports of their
difficulties in finding jobs this summer.
Has the minister got any information that would tend to counteract or
give us another version of that?
Mrs. Vodrey: It is a little bit too early to tell the
exact success or numbers of the placement through the Manitoba Job Centres as
it is not quite the end of June yet.
However, I understand and am informed that on visits to the centre, some
centres are up in terms of their placements and some centres are somewhat
down. But we are expecting to place
approximately the same number of students this year through the Manitoba Job
Centres as we did last year.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Item 4.(h)(3)(a)
Salaries $802,200‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $403,300‑‑pass;
(c) Grants $2,567,400‑‑pass.
4.(h)(4) Partners with Youth (a) Grant Assistance
$1,400,000‑‑pass; (b) Less:
Recoverable from Rural Economic Development Initiatives.
*
(2140)
Ms. Friesen: On the Partners with Youth program, the
appropriation remains the same in this case, but I am sure the minister knows
that youth employment has not substantially decreased in
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area of Partners with Youth, there
were recommendations which were received at the end of last year. They were
implemented in order to expand sponsor accessibility to Partners with Youth in
1993. The Infrastructure category, which
seemed to lead to some confusion last year by virtue of its name
Infrastructure, has been renamed Business Community Development. By renaming
this, it is anticipated that applicants will be encouraged to initiate any type
of project that will enable them to develop or to expand their parameters of
operation.
Secondly, a Marketing component was
added. Under this category, sponsors are
encouraged to initiate projects which will help them market products, services
or community features.
Thirdly, a Young Entrepreneurs component
is being introduced to encourage young people 18 to 24 to start their own
businesses. Under Young Entrepreneurs,
applicants are required to submit a detailed business plan to a board comprised
of program staff and private‑sector business persons. Approved applicants would be eligible to
receive a $2,000 grant to help defray business start‑up costs.
Ms. Friesen: Is there a list available of groups who received
the grants last year‑‑not now, but at a later date?
Mrs. Vodrey: We can certainly assemble that list, but just
to provide some assistance this evening, I can give the member some
examples: City of
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Item 4.(h)(4)(b)
Less: Recoverable from Rural Economic
Development Initiatives $500,000‑‑pass.
4.(j) Apprenticeship (1) Salaries
$936,600.
Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us if she is having any
discussions with the federal government, if there are any plans within the
government of
Mrs. Vodrey: When I attended the meeting of labour market
ministers in January, which was the first time that group of ministers had met,
I understand, in four years, one of the areas of discussion was the area of apprenticeship. There certainly was a presentation and
discussion on that area to look at Red Seal and also the potential expansion of
the Red Seal programs. In terms of the current status, the Canadian Council of
Directors of Apprenticeship has developed an action plan for accelerating the
process for establishing, updating interprovincial common standards in
apprenticeship training and certification.
Both the federal and the provincial and
territorial governments have indicated a strong desire to establish only one
interprovincial standard for each trade or occupation, and the expansion of the
interprovincial standards would provide for a better trained and more
competitive Canadian workforce. It would
also allow for greater interprovincial workforce mobility and make more
effective and efficient use of the available resources.
This committee has an action plan of three
activity levels: short‑term objectives, medium‑term objectives and
long‑term objectives. At the
moment, there are 40 designated interprovincial Red Seal trades, of which
Ms. Friesen: This is a section of the department which has
been recently transferred from Labour.
It is my understanding that at the time it was transferred, there was no
consultation with the
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
*
(2150)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the transfer of
Apprenticeship into the Department of Education and Training, and particularly
now into the Advanced Education and Skills Training Division, was seen as an
important one. The in‑school
training and administrative components of Apprenticeship will be housed in one
division now and in one department of government. Previously, there was a separation within the
Apprenticeship, where one part did develop the curriculum and another part
delivered the curriculum. There was
somewhat of a disjointed approach.
Now we are looking for a much more integrated
approach, and we also are interested in the co‑operative education
program, working closely with Apprenticeship in delivering and implementing
pilot projects for high school apprenticeship.
That now can be accomplished within one department.
The Apprenticeship Branch brings to
Education and Training a strong connection with industry and with labour
leaders who are involved in the Trades Advisory Committees. This connection will be important in further
developing the partnerships and the co‑operation between the province and
the private sector. Also, institutional
training programs and Apprenticeship and Training Branch have an opportunity
for the sort of crossing over of ideas that can improve the quality of training
in all of the programs. So that was some of the reasoning behind the move.
In terms of the move itself into Education
and Training, we have certainly maintained the Trades Advisory Committees. I have already met with the chair and a
representative of the Apprenticeship and the Trades Qualification Board, and at
that time, we had a discussion of some of the questions that they had regarding
the move. We certainly looked to meet
again and made that commitment at that meeting to make sure that this transition
is not only a smooth transition, but also a very beneficial transition,
beneficial to the people within the programs and beneficial also across the
province. We believe it will be
beneficial to all of Education and Training, as well as Apprenticeship, to have
this all housed in one department.
I can also say that the deputy minister
informs me that he and the department have had a meeting with the Canadian
Federation of Labour, so we are, during the process of this transition, making
a strong effort to meet with all of the people involved to look at any concerns
they might have and to attempt to address them as quickly as possible.
Ms. Friesen: I am interested in the formal processes and
procedures the minister will be establishing for the connections with labour
and with the trade union movement.
The minister said that she has met with
the Canadian Federation of Labour, which I believe represents a small
proportion of labour in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly, we will
make an effort to meet with the Manitoba Federation of Labour at the earliest
opportunity. I know that they would
inform the member that I have already had meetings with them, certainly
regarding the area of education reform as well.
So we have begun a process, through the broader issue of education, of
communication.
I know the Manitoba Federation of Labour
also has a representative on the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualification Board,
and I have said to the member that I have already had a first meeting with
their chairperson and representative whom the board chose to have attend that
meeting. At that time, I also made the
offer that we would meet again, that I would attend a meeting and that we would
make every effort between us to make sure that the communication certainly
flows as quickly as possible and as smoothly as possible.
In addition, I spoke about the Trades Advisory
Committees, and on those Trades Advisory Committees, the
*
(2200)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4.(j) Apprenticeship (1) Salaries $936,600‑‑pass.
(2) Other Expenditures $235,800‑‑
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just a couple of
quick questions to the minister.
How does the Apprenticeship/Training
relate to the other kinds of training that are going on in the department,
specifically, the 2000 and the tax‑credit training and the like?
Mrs. Vodrey: The Apprenticeship and Training Branch is
virtually a training institution with one exception. The in‑school training is conducted by
other institutions, in some cases, the community colleges, primarily the
community colleges. In many ways, the
branch activities very closely resemble the activities of other branches
formally housed in what was our post‑secondary area: initiatives such as the colleges, the private
vocational schools, New Careers, Stevenson Aviation Technical Training Centre.
Yet Apprenticeship and Training also has a
common thread with Workforce 2000. Both
programs have a very close contact with industry in developing and conducting
their training programs. Essentially, both programs concentrate on workplace‑based
programming and training. The training
is driven by employer demand. Both
programs also have a network of regional officials.
Mr. Alcock: Is there any attempt to sort out or‑‑you
say it is employer demand‑‑to direct a program one way or the other
should it be appropriate for Apprenticeship or for Workforce 2000 or for the
tax credit program. Is there any sorting
done on that?
Mrs. Vodrey: May I just clarify with the member? Sorting, is that on behalf of the
participants to direct the participants toward a particular program, or
employers?
Mr. Alcock: I understood that one of the reasons for moving
Apprenticeship and Training into this division was to have better co‑ordination,
a better overall strategy. Now, if it is
employer driven‑‑that is what I believe the minister said in her
last response‑‑presumably employers come forward to the branch and
say, well, we are interested in starting this; we feel we have a demand for
that or whatever. What form of co‑ordination
takes place between the various training possibilities for an employer?
Mrs. Vodrey: The area of apprenticeship has only been with
the Department of Education and Training for a short time, but again one of the
reasons for the move has been to look at that particular linkage. I did mention that linkage between programs
such as Workforce 2000 and Apprenticeship can be forged to further their common
objectives regarding the workplace‑based training.
I also spoke about the co‑operative
education component of the Department of Education and Training, and we would
expect that this area would also work co‑operatively and very closely with
Apprenticeship in developing and implementing pilot projects for high school
apprenticeship as well.
I would also like to point out the issue
of complementarity which I have been speaking about in a relation to a number
of issues, that programs work with many of the same industry representatives
and same associations. They are often
active on the same industry committees.
Accordingly, now there is a significant opportunity for the programs to
collaborate and to co‑operate in approach to sectoral human resource
planning.
Mr. Alcock: Does a relationship exist on the federal side
between the apprenticeship training that is done within the province and
similar educational programs that are offered on the federal side?
Mrs. Vodrey: There is a link between the Canadian Council
of Directors of Apprenticeship and EIC or Employment and Immigration
Mr. Alcock: Has there been any indication from the
federal government that they might be willing to move more of that towards
provincial control?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being after ten o'clock, what is the
will of the committee? Carry on? Okay, we will carry on.
Mrs. Vodrey: Apprenticeship is a provincial
responsibility, and the agreements for apprenticeship are interprovincial as
opposed to federal. But the federal
government does fund the provincial training through direct purchase.
Mr. Alcock: Was there not a discussion though‑‑in
fact, it came up as one of the discussions under the Charlottetown Accord
proposal, that the federal government would withdraw from some areas of
jurisdiction. Was this area not one of
them?
Mrs. Vodrey: The discussions which came up under the
Charlottetown Accord focused on the issue of training in the broad sense. Some of the areas that were discussed were,
for instance, the Employment and Immigration centres and UIC training, but
nothing has been decided and there has not been any further specific concrete
discussion at this point.
Mr. Alcock: Are there discussions going on at all between
the federal and provincial government or working committees established by
looking at areas that might be transferred?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in terms of the
apprenticeship area, at a recent meeting of deputy ministers responsible for
the labour market, the issue of apprenticeship was discussed, and there was, I
understand, certainly a strong will amongst the provinces that that remain
within provincial control.
In the area of devolution of other skills
training responsibilities which the federal government may now accept, at the
formal meeting that we had as ministers in January, the federal minister said
at that time that he was not looking to devolution; however, individual
provinces may be approaching the minister to look at what may be of benefit to
their provinces. Perhaps the federal minister then will want to have a specific
discussion with those provinces. But I
have not on behalf of
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I have some questions relating to the largest employer in my
community, CN Rail. They have a program
ongoing for training apprentices over the years, which of course is being
nearly phased out at this point in time.
*
(2210)
There is also some concern within the
community. I raised these concerns with
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) when he was responsible for Apprenticeship
and Training a couple of years back, with respect to tradespeople within the
railway itself in my community, in the shops, that are finding themselves in a
position where there is a possibility of being laid off or have been laid off
and have not, through the workplace, acquired the necessary skills allowing
them to be portable to other jobs. In
other words, they do not have the certificate to allow them to go out and seek
alternate employment when they find themselves laid off. I asked the Minister of Labour when he was
responsible for this department to begin a program of providing that skills
training for these employees.
Does the Minister of Education now‑‑has
her department undertaken any program in consultation with CN Rail and the
affected employees and their union representatives to provide for those skills
upgrading programs for these employees so they can have that portable skills
certificate?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that
CNR has some internal apprenticeships which are not designated
apprenticeships. I am wondering if these
are the ones that the member is speaking about.
They are in‑house, and there has not been, to our knowledge,
certainly recently, an approach by CN to look at having these designated or any
other kind of approach on behalf of these particular employees.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I could be wrong in
this, but it was my understanding, at least, that CN itself, as a company, was
reluctant to provide the employees with the necessary skills to allow them to
receive the full trade certification, because it would allow these employees
then to most likely, should they choose, leave the service of the company.
The part here is that the apprenticeship
program within the company, the in‑house apprenticeship program, does
provide a level of skills for these employees, allowing them to meet the needs
of the company, but did not allow them to meet the needs of the Apprenticeship
Branch that would provide the certification for full trade status. In other words, I had initiated these
discussions after the employees had contacted myself. I had initiated the discussions with the
Apprenticeship Branch, Skills Training branch, to allow for some initiative to
be taken to provide the extra training required so these employees could
acquire the skills and receive the certificate that would allow them to have
those portable skills. To the best of my
knowledge, that has not taken place.
Is the department initiating a program
like that to provide the employees with the necessary skills training to allow
them to be portable?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand that the
member may have made that approach approximately two years ago. I can only
speak for now Apprenticeship being housed in the Department of Education and
Training, and it was moved over for the reasons which I have given
tonight. I can tell the member, we have
had no approach while the Apprenticeship is now being housed in the Department
of Education and Training.
The benefits of being housed in the
Department of Education and Training is, as I have said all along, through the
Advanced Education and Skills Training division, we now have a full range of
programming and training opportunities, and perhaps those would be of
assistance to some of those individuals.
But, to this point, we have had no approach by CN.
Mr. Reid: I am not sure if the minister is aware of
this, but CN is continuing to lay off employees, so a program like this is very
important, in fact, vitally important to a lot of these employees considering
the numbers of people who are going to be affected by layoff and have been
affected by layoff.
Is it possible for the minister to consult
with her colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) to find out what steps
the Department of Labour had taken with respect to the program that I thought
was in good hands at the time two years ago and obviously did not go anywhere
under the Minister of Labour's direction?
Is it possible for this Minister of Education to consult with the
Minister of Labour to find out why not and possibly have her department, the
Department of Education, undertake to initiate this program to provide those
skills for these employees?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member speaks of
the downsizing at CN. I would just
remind him that the downsizing labour adjustment is still the responsibility of
the Labour Adjustment unit through the Minister of Labour. However, we can have a look and see what the
status was and why such a discussion was discontinued. If the member is saying tonight that this is
an important area, then it would perhaps be important to see if CN is
interested in another approach.
Mr. Reid: I will reiterate again for the Minister of
Education. The Canadian National Railway, CN Rail, from the best of my
knowledge from what I have understood, is not interested in a program such as
this, because it would allow their employees the opportunity to move freely out
of the company service. They have a
captive workforce right now, because those employees do not have that skill
level to allow them to be portable to other jobs. So for her to think that she is going to go
back to the CN Rail and think that she is going to receive the blessing of the
company, I think is the wrong approach to take.
The key here is to talk with the
employees' groups or the representatives themselves to find out if they can initiate
this program since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) obviously did not
follow through on this, and provide some start‑up or some initiative to
move in that direction to provide these skills training for these employees.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, the member tries to
put words in my mouth. What I said was,
we have had no approach. We have had no
approach from CN. We have had no
approach by the groups that the member is also speaking about then.
In terms of what happened in the discussions
of my colleague the Minister of Labour, the member makes an accusation of the
Minister of Labour. I would say to the
member, maybe we should find out exactly where the discussions broke down. I would say right now, he does not know that
they broke down with the Minister of Labour by any means.
Mr. Reid: This is a serious matter for the employees of
CN Rail in my community who are finding themselves in a position of being laid
off. I, in all seriousness say to the
Minister of Education I hope that her department staff and/or herself will
follow through with a program of this nature to provide that skills level
training, to consult with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) to find out why
this program did not go anywhere.
The most recent discussions I had with the
representatives of the employees was a few weeks ago. I asked them what was taking place with this
program and they thought it was stalled in the Department of Labour. Now it has not moved anywhere since then, so
I ask the minister in all seriousness, to consult with the Minister of Labour
to find out why this program has not moved forward and hopefully put this
program into effect to provide the skills for these employees.
*
(2220)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I said earlier, we do
not know the reason that the discussions have been stalled, if in fact they
have been stalled, or exactly what the Minister of Labour may be doing through
his own Labour Adjustment unit on behalf of these particular employees.
So I am sure when the member met with
these employee groups, he was able to inform them about the change and that the
Apprenticeship Branch is now housed within the Department of Education. I am sure that he would have informed them
and brought them up to date on that particular area.
As I said, we have not had any approach
from the employee groups either to this point.
I certainly recognize the seriousness of any downsizing which would
occur within any area of
Mr. Reid: It is a little difficult, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, through you to the minister, for the employees of the CN plant to
be aware that they have to raise the concerns again to the Minister of
Education when they most likely did not know that the Minister of Education is
now responsible for a program that was originally under the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).
So it is very difficult for these
employees to know that they have to make representation again to the government
on this. I believe they are getting the
quick shuffle here. Will the minister,
if I undertake to arrange with the employees and their representatives, agree
to sit down at a meeting with the representatives so that we can work out some
solution to these concerns?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, though this information
came out in a news release, I am sure that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
did his job as an MLA and provided that information to these groups. I do not know if he did or not, but I presume
that he would have wanted to do his work as an MLA. If the member has a request, then my
department will certainly look at it, and we will look at the status and where
things stopped.
Mr. Reid: Well, I can assure the minister that right
after the 1990 election I started working on this issue, and I had meetings
with the department staff, and I think, if I understand correctly, Marilyn
Kenny was one of the people in on the meeting.
There were other department staff, senior staff from the Apprenticeship
Branch that were in the meeting as well, along with representatives of the
various union organizations and myself.
I thought there was some progress going to
be made on this, and nothing moved forward.
What I am asking for now is a commitment by the minister that if I
arrange for the representatives of these employees to come to another meeting,
to obviously once again raise the issue to the government of the day, will the
minister be willing to sit down at such a meeting and participate in a meeting
like this so that she can hear the concerns of these employees themselves and
their representatives about her department providing the necessary skills
training for these employees? Will the minister
commit to sitting in at this meeting?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I replied in my last
answer to the member, if he would like to make a contact with the Department of
Education and Training, I will see that staff is available for a meeting.
Mr. Reid: I take it by that answer then that the
minister herself is not interested in attending such a meeting and it is only
her staff then.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member's unparliamentary discussion in
terms of attributing a motive‑‑I understand that the member wants
to have this meeting take place and he would like it to take place as soon as
possible. What I am endeavouring to do
is to say that if the quickest way to have that meeting take place, at least at
a beginning level, I am more than happy to have the staff of the Department of
Education and Training take part in that meeting. If the member wishes to wait
until it is able to be fit into my schedule, he may be asking for some
delay. He has made a point this evening
that this is important, and I have accepted the fact that he sees this as
important, and I have said tonight, twice now, three times on the record, that
I am willing to make the arrangements for my department to meet and to look at
exactly where this issue stands.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not wish to
belabour this point, and this will be my last question.
The key here is, and in all seriousness to
the minister, since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) did not follow through
on a commitment, my concern here is that these employees, if they do not have
the minister's ear, will once again get the shuffle by the department and that
they will not have the opportunity to have their concerns addressed. I am afraid here that if the minister is not
aware of it and some action is not taken, the department could give the shuffle
again to these employees and their concerns.
That is my concern here, and I want to make sure that the minister is
aware of this since her colleague the Minister of Labour did not follow through
on his commitment.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I will say again to the
member that I really take a great deal of concern about his attributing
motives. He does not know himself what
happened. He does not know where the
talks and discussions stalled. He does
not know what is in fact going on, and he continues to make accusations out
loud and on the record, and it seems like really irresponsible statements being
made by the member, who has already attempted to attribute motives and act in a
way that is really most unparliamentary.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Deputy Chair, I just would like to
comment on the remarks made by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). When he approached me three years ago, we
arranged a meeting with a senior assistant deputy minister, and the head of the
union involved. We were to try to see
what could be done, if anything could be done at all, and that process there
did not work out. It did not work out
for reasons that could not be overcome.
I just say to the member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid), he has such wonderful comments to put on the record, but you know
something, Mr. Deputy Chair, in all the years he has supposedly had concern
about this matter, I have made the invitation to him to meet with the assistant
deputy minister, if he was really concerned about his constituents, to pursue
the matter, and he never has. All the
member for Transcona likes to do is talk about it. When it comes time to doing work on behalf of
his constituents to see if the matter could be dealt with, the member for
Transcona is nowhere to be found.
His record is proven in the case of
Workers Compensation as well. I have
made the offer to the member many times to meet with the chair of the board to
discuss some specific matters with him, and he never does.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable members
that we are dealing with 4.(j)(2) Other Expenditures, which happens to fall
under the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry that the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik) takes offence to the comments that I made here, but I
would have thought that after three years there would have been some progress
on this, and I did meet with his director, I believe he said, of Apprenticeship
and Training Branch.
I had meetings with the union
representatives at those meetings on at least two occasions. I had phone calls with the department
staff. I do not know how much more work
I as the MLA have to do when it is the minister responsible for the department. That is why I am asking this Minister of
Education‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe we are here to
do Estimates on Education, and I wonder if you could call the members to order
and get back to Estimates on Education.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order, but we are dealing this time with 4.(j)(2) Other Expenditures, under
the Apprenticeship program.
* * *
Mr. Reid: Despite the comments that are made here
between the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) and myself, in all seriousness I
say, on behalf of the employees of the CN operations in Transcona, that I hope
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) will take my comments that I have put
to her here this evening seriously; that she and/or her staff will agree to
meet with myself and the employee representatives to work out a solution to
these concerns; and that we can do it in the very near future.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4.(j)(2) Other Expenditures $235,800‑‑pass.
Item 4.(k) Canada‑Manitoba
Resolution 16.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $49,831,500 for Education and Training (Advanced Education
and Skills Training), for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1994‑‑pass.
Mrs. Vodrey: Could we have a five‑minute break to
bring in new staff?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We will take a five‑minute recess to
get the staff changed around.
The committee recessed at 10:30 p.m.
After
Recess
The committee resumed at 10:42 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The committee will come to order. We are now dealing with item 5. Support to
Schools (a) Schools Finance (1) Salaries $731,400.
Mr. Plohman: When we had discussed under Policy this area
related to Schools Finance, I had asked the minister for a number of pieces of
information that is standard to be provided to the critics when discussing the
public schools. I had asked the minister
at that time if she could provide us with a copy of a breakdown of the Schools
Grants line. I realize we are dealing
with Schools Finance, and I believe we can go through this line by line, but I
wanted to know whether the minister was prepared to provide the information,
the breakdown that we had asked for the previous occasion. I understand that it is over a month ago,
during the beginning of the Estimates process.
If the minister has that, I would appreciate it, so we have an
opportunity to review it briefly prior to getting to that line in the
Estimates.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have the information
which the member has asked for. It is
more detailed information than is usually provided, but I have it for him,
FRAME Report, the 1991‑92 financials, the FRAME Report, 1992‑93
budgets, and the funding of schools for the school year 1993‑94. The member also asked for a comparison of
government share, and I have that information to table also.
Mr. Plohman: Has the minister provided in the funding of
schools '93‑94 an outline of any changes in provisions for financing for
the '93‑94 year? In other words,
any change in the financing structure, not just in the dollars but in the rules
governing those dollars.
Mrs. Vodrey: If the member would turn in the funding of
schools '93‑94 to page 4 under the highlights, those changes have been
outlined for him. Also, I would say that
a great deal of these changes, I would like to point out, come from the
recommendations of the advisory committee on ed funding.
Mr. Plohman: Do the‑‑I am just wondering
whether I will go through that line by line.
I want to ask a question about one of the‑‑first of all, I
have a number of regulations here that have just been released as of June 2,
'93, a regulation in Order‑in‑Council Nos. 451, 450 and 449. Are these the regulations for the Schools
Finance program that was brought in two years ago?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, that area of regulations
falls into 16.5(b) under Schools Administration, and what we were asking the
member is: Would he be going line by
line or would he be looking to do this as a block of issues? The difficulty is to make sure that we have
the staff available to assist in providing the most comprehensive answers.
Mr. Plohman: What the minister is saying is that she would
like to go line by line in this area so that the proper staff can be at the table.
Perhaps she can explain the difference in
the responsibility between (a) and (d), because there might be some
overlap. If we pass (a) now, when I get
to (d), some of the questions I might be asking might fall under (a), and I do
not want the minister saying at that time, well, we have passed (a) already so
we cannot discuss that. It seems to me
that (a) deals more with the policy behind the actual grant that is indicated
in (d).
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, (a) deals with the branch
operations; (d) may be the area in which the member will have wider‑ranging
questions and we will certainly try and deal with all of his questions at (d).
Mr. Plohman: Did the minister provide the committee with the
information on the independent schools as well in this information that she has
provided today?
Mrs. Vodrey: The funding to independent schools is listed
on the bottom third of the sheet which I gave him, Comparison of Government
Share.
Mr. Plohman: But the minister has not given a breakdown of
that. Do you have a breakdown as well
for us on a school‑by‑school basis?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I do have a breakdown which
I am prepared to table now on the Private Schools, Instruction & Services support
for '93‑94.
Mr. Plohman: I am glad to see the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) is here again.
Welcome.
The minister has outlined so it will go
line by line, Schools Finance at this point, preparation of policy papers,
draft legislation regulations and financial analysis related to the funding of
public and independent schools. I had
asked the minister about these regulations that I had numbered before me here
and listed and the minister said that falls under the second line, and yet says
that the preparation of regulations is done by this section.
*
(2250)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in terms of the regulations
that the member is speaking to, I know he would like to discuss those in
relation to funding. Those regulations
as they relate to the funding would best be discussed under 16.5.(d).
Mr. Plohman: That if fine, except I just want to ask
whether these regulations, without getting into too much detail at this time,
whether they apply to the Schools Finance Program that was introduced in the
'92‑93 year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Could the member give me the numbers of the
regulations he is referring to?
Mr. Plohman: Does the minister want the Orders‑in‑Council? That is what I listed earlier, Orders‑in‑Council
449, 450 and 451.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in looking at these
regulations, these apply to 16.5.(d), the support to the schools in terms of
how the funding to public schools is worked through the formula.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I think we have to be a little bit
flexible at the beginning here, and then we can go into more detail later. I have a colleague here who wants to ask some
questions about a school division in his constituency, and I am not going to
pass those lines through before he can ask his questions, if I have a choice. Otherwise, he has to come back later on, so I
hope we can accommodate that.
The second thing is I was just reading
from the minister's outline in the Supplementary Estimates where, under Schools
Finance which is (a), it deals with the preparation of regulations, so I assume
this branch prepared those regulations. If they prepared them, then they should
be the ones to provide some answers on them.
I am asking some questions about that at this particular time.
I want to know if this particular
regulation is prepared to give force to the new Schools Finance Program which
the minister keeps referring me to in (d).
That is where the grants are manifested, but I am talking about the
preparation behind the regulations. Now,
were these regulations prepared for the Schools Finance Program to give force
to that program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the policy development of
the regulation falls under 16.5.(d). In
16.5.(a), the regulation only restates in legal terms the information that is
presented in the funding book.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that these are the
regulations that give effect to the new funding model that was introduced.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the funding model introduced for the
school year '92‑93.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister tell me why they are now
only being introduced, when it is well into the '93‑94 fiscal year? We
have regulations here that just came out, June 2, '93, and I note that they are
all retroactive to January 1, 1992. Is
the minister saying she went through the whole previous year without legal
authority for the implementation of that new funding formula and model?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the previous year,
all school divisions received a funding booklet. In that funding booklet, it described to them
the application of the new funding formula.
The regulations simply confirm the
information that school divisions have been using from the funding booklet, but
these regulations now put into legal language the information that school
divisions have had and have been applying.
In translating the concepts into legal
language, it has been a very complex matter and has taken some time. It has involved the Department of Justice,
and that has now been completed, but the actual information contained in the regulations
has been available to school divisions beginning in the school year '92‑93.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I thank the minister for that
clarification, but it really was not what I was asking. I knew that school divisions obviously had
something communicated to them in the previous year when this Schools Finance
Program was brought in, but it is much more than legal language which the
minister found very difficult to put down in words here. As she said, it was very difficult and took a
lot of time. I can see the regulation is
very complex, very long, and, obviously, there was a lot of work put into it.
But that is not the point. The fact is it does more than provide legal
language. It provides legal force. It makes it legal.
Does the minister agree with that?
Without the regulations, the actions that
she undertook are not in fact legal.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under The Public
Schools Act, the minister has the legal authority to enact regulations, and The
Regulations Act allows for two years for retroactivity. So this certainly falls
into that time frame, well within the time frame.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that for the
previous year there were no regulations in place, and so no legal force, and
she is now legalizing what was undertaken last year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just would like to
correct that it is not The Public Schools Act, but rather The Education
Administration Act which allows for the minister to make those regulations, and
which, in mentioning The Regulations Act, allows for the two years of
retroactivity.
In The Education Administration Act, I
point to section 4(3)‑‑I am not sure if the member needs me to read
it. It says: "Notwithstanding The
Regulations Act, a regulation made under this Act or The Public Schools Act
respecting grants or support payable or to be provided may be made effective
retroactively; . . . ." Then it
provides for the two‑year time period. Regulations are, I am informed,
always approximately one year subsequent to the release of a funding book.
Mr. Plohman: The minister said that there were, in the
yellow book, some changes to the Schools Finance Program this year. She pointed out that there were several
changes that were listed on page 4.
Did any of those affect the actual
language of the regulation for this year, because this regulation is now
applying to two years? It is applying to
the previous year plus this year. Yet it
seems that the department has actually made changes during the second
year. Do these regulations apply to the
previous year or to this year or to both?
*
(2300)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, last year in the
Estimates we provided this yellow funding booklet to the critic at that
time. As I said, regulations follow
approximately one year subsequent. So we
have now provided the regulations in line with the yellow book on the ed
funding formula which was released last year.
We have made changes this year which are
noted now in the yellow book regarding funding for the school year '93‑94. The regulations regarding those changes will
be brought forward then next year. As I
have said to the member, the regulations are usually approximately one year
subsequent.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is
saying that she is bringing in regulations in June that were, in some
instances, for an obsolete program, regulations to legalize something that no
longer exists. For example, a lower
divisor was used for the calculation of full‑time equivalent
instructional units in small rural high schools and sparsely populated school
divisions. When the regulations are
drawn up dealing with small high schools and the full‑time equivalent is
set out, that no longer applies to this year, so we have a regulation here that
is already obsolete.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again this particular
process, as I have said, requires the conceptualization and the ability to
speak about the funding formula and in a way that school divisions are able to
apply it. Then the concepts are translated
into legal terminology. This is complex,
as the member himself has said, and that is why there is usually a time lag
from the actual‑‑from the time that the information is put out to
school divisions till the time of the legal regulations. But, as the member
said, we are looking to cover what occurred last year, and now we will be
making regulations to incorporate any changes which occurred this year.
I would remind the member that he might
like to speak to his colleague the former Minister of Education, the member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). It was the same
process, the same time frame existed when that member's party was in
government.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that clarification,
and we will perhaps have another chance to discuss that at some point.
Right now I wanted to ask the minister if
she had any policy papers on ed finance, any additional information on
legislation. I notice that was also part of the functions of the finance
section of this department. Could the
minister share with us any information on the latest on policy information
dealing with finance?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the highlights or the
changes that have been incorporated are already within this particular
document. I can tell the member that I
said from the beginning this funding formula was active and dynamic, and the
committee on ed finance met this morning, as a matter of fact, to look at any
changes for the following year.
Mr. Plohman: Could the minister provide or indicate to me
where in this information I could find the impact of the 2 percent across‑the‑board
cut this year on each division? Will I
find that in the FRAME Report as to the percentage increase or decrease for
each division as a result of the across‑the‑board 2 percent cut?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the effect of any
reductions would be found and discussed in 16.5 (d).
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman: We can discuss it at that time. I am asking the minister if she can provide a
listing of that. We may very well get to
that tonight, so I would like to get that information now. That is why I am asking for it. The 2 percent cut on each division, how that
has impacted on each division and the tax increase, the local levy increase
that each school division has applied this year. I understand that some have increased by 15
percent, for example, Kelsey, because they could exceed the cap, and I would
also like to know which school divisions were allowed to exceed the cap.
So we would have the impact of the 2
percent, how it manifested itself in each division, the local levy increase or
decrease or whatever it might have been, and which divisions were allowed to
exceed the cap.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, that information would be covered
under 16.5(d) where we will have a chance to look at what the support to school
divisions is and also what the effect of the 2 percent cap is.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, that is where I am going to ask
questions about it. I just want the
information now, and I am asking the minister if she can provide it, if she has
a listing of this in a handy form, either in a booklet or just on a sheet, so
we have that for discussion when we get to (d) in this section.
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have that information available at
this moment, but I will see the member gets it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Plohman: Could the minister indicate when she can have
that?
Mrs. Vodrey: As quickly as possible.
Mr. Plohman: Well, first of all, we are not asking for any
really difficult information here. It is
how the 2 percent reduction has manifested itself division by division. Is that not standard information you would
have from the budgets each of the school divisions have submitted months ago? Has that not been compiled on one sheet?
Mrs. Vodrey: I understand what the member is asking for,
and I have said I will provide him with the information as soon as possible.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I need something better than that. It is not too helpful to talk about as soon
as possible, because the minister has used that term quite often in these
Estimates on previous occasions.
She was going to have an announcement on
boundary review as soon as possible. She
was going to provide more information on Francophone division as soon as
possible. What is it? What does that mean?
*
(2310)
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I am endeavouring to get the
information for the member, and I will get it as soon as possible.
Mr. Plohman: Does that mean tonight?
Mrs. Vodrey: If it is possible, it will be tonight. If it is not possible for this evening, it
will then be tomorrow at the start of the sitting.
Mr. Plohman: The minister says, possible. Since she does not have a printer here to
make up the forms, would that indicate she believes that she may have these
copies in the form that would be convenient to distribute?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have taken note of the member's
request. Staff is working on it as we
are speaking, and I will attempt to give it to the member as soon as possible.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying they are trying to
get it in a form that can be distributed this evening yet. Is that what the minister is indicating?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have said that I will distribute it as soon
as possible. If I can arrange to have it
available by the end of this evening, I will provide it at the end of this
evening. Otherwise, I will provide it at the beginning of the sitting tomorrow.
Mr. Plohman: I do not have to repeat what information we
want again? Can the minister tell me
what she is getting ready for us?
Mrs. Vodrey: Delighted.
The member has asked for a list by school division of the impact of any
changes on schools' funding, and also the impact of the 2 percent. Perhaps he would like to tell me now, is that
exactly what he has requested or is there anything further?
Mr. Plohman: I am surprised the minister missed a couple
of portions of it if I have been so repetitive here as they would like to
claim. What about the cap, those
divisions that were allowed to exceed the cap of 2 percent of the special
requirement this year as provided for in Bill 16. Will that be part of that information as
well?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member checks Hansard, he will see
that I did include that in what I said I would provide for him.
Mr. Plohman: Just now you did not. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, also does the
minister have a compilation of the professional development days proposed for
elimination in each division? Would she
have that available?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have some
information for the member on the public sector reduced workweek. It is not by division. I will remind the member, according to the
bill, that divisions do report that information to the Minister of Labour. I do have some information. It is as of June 3, 1993; all divisions have
not reported yet; and I understand at least one division may be making an
adjustment to what has been originally reported. I am prepared to table this information so
far.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister very much for that
information. I appreciate having a copy
of it.
Would the minister also have a breakout of
the number of staff reduced in each division, teachers and support staff?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, we would not have that information. They are not required to report that.
Mr. Plohman: In their budget decisions, would not the
school divisions provide that? For
example, in the
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: The school divisions do not provide
individual lists of who they will be employing, and how they will be employing
those people.
They send us, instead, a number of people
employed. We can look at the number of
people employed comparatively, to then see if there is any reduction. But what may look like a reduction now may,
in fact, by the time of the fall, not be a reduction.
Mr. Plohman: The minister gave us a copy of the Public
Sector Reduced Work Week listing, and she prefaced that by saying the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik) keeps these statistics and so on, but she did table
it. This is not by division.
Has the minister been able to detect any
pattern in those divisions with high mill rates, in the higher mill rates
section of the overall comparison with all divisions in the province, that
those with higher local mill rates tend to be requiring more days being
taken? Is there any pattern like that,
that the minister's staff have noticed, or have been able to detect?
Mrs. Vodrey: From the information we have at the moment,
there does not appear to be a pattern.
Mr. Plohman: One of the things before we start moving
forward here: Could the minister provide
us with an updated break out of the FRAME information for '93‑94, to the
extent that it is available?
I know that these final complete reports
are perhaps a little delayed in coming out; for example, we have the '92‑93
report. To what extent does the minister have the '93‑94 information that
would compare to the '92‑93?
* (2320)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that we only received the last
budget last week, so we are not able to provide that comparison at this time.
Mr. Plohman: Well, you already have all of the
information. It is a matter of compiling
it, and it is all done in an automated way, would it not be, through the
computer system?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand that the
FRAME budget will not be out or available for about a month. If the member has some very specific
information, we could try and get that information for him, but, in total, we
would not have the budgets for a month.
Mr. Plohman: I can see on the various divisions,
comparison division by division, that would be the case since they have been
coming in.
Could the minister provide us with a
breakdown or breakout of the financial support to public and private schools
based on program; in other words, the same format that is used in the FRAME
information: regular program,
exceptional program, vocational program, community education and services,
school division administration, instructional and pupil support services,
student transportation services, operations and maintenance and fiscal
services, a breakout of the information.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what the member is
asking for is, again, a lot of the detailed work which would go into the FRAME
Report. As I have explained to him, we
would not be able to have that much detailed information for him in the range
of areas that he is asking. It is
basically what will be required within the whole report and that report will
take approximately a month before it is compiled.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I just want to take issue with that a
bit with the minister. I can understand,
based on information that has come from school divisions in terms of
comparisons, but we are talking about the grants that the minister developed in
February when she made the funding announcement. We are not breaking this down by school
divisions. I am talking about overall
for the province, regular program, vocational, exceptional and so on, the
amount of dollars that the province is spending in each of those areas as
compared to the previous year, not by division.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry. I thought the member was asking division by
division. We can provide him with some
macrofigures, but it will not be until we sit again, probably tomorrow or
Thursday.
Mr. Plohman: Can I get that for the private schools as
well?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, but when I did
table the information he asked for, for independent schools by institution, I
believe he will find a lot of the information that he would already like on
that sheet.
Mr. Plohman: This is one kind of information, but again I
did not change the nature of my question when I was talking about private
schools versus public schools. It was
the global information for each of those categories. The minister has provided a listing of the
total grants for each of the schools, but what I wanted was the same breakout
of information by category, by program, for the private schools just as for the
public schools, but not private school by private school, overall.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will make every
effort to get that to the member as soon as possible. We will try to get it to him tomorrow. We are not able to do that because of the
lateness of the hour tonight and the need to be back into Estimates tomorrow,
then we will have it for him by Thursday.
Mr. Plohman: I would like to have this long passed by
Thursday, for the minister's information.
So, if she can get that tomorrow, it would be very helpful for the
process here.
Perhaps we can, at this point, move
through‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(a) Schools Finance (1) Salaries $731,400‑‑pass.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with the
understanding that, if we get through the lines to Schools Grants tonight, when
we have the information, there be no limitations placed on the questions about
that information, because we are not under Schools Finance.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $482,900‑‑pass.
5.(b) Schools Administration (1) Salaries
$874,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $394,200. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Plohman: I notice the reference to the responsibility
for the policy on French Language Services.
Can the minister give us any update on the activities of the French
language governance process that is ongoing at the present time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that in
this particular area the responsibility is to look at which documents, for
instance, curricular documents, would be put out in both languages or would be
put out in single languages.
The area which deals with Francophone
governance falls under the area of BEF, which we looked at some time ago. However, I can tell the member that the
community meetings are continuing in the area of Francophone governance. I spoke with Monsieur Monnin today, and the
committee is being extremely busy. They
recognize that there is a great deal of information to be provided to the
communities, and they are working very hard as a group.
Monsieur Monnin told me this morning that
he expects to have all of the information for registration, considering the
July 1 holiday. When that occurs, he
will be giving up to, I understand, about July 6 for all the registrations to
have been forwarded to him. Then he will
be looking at the registration.
*
(2330)
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying, then, that all
registrations will have been completed by July 6.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes. As I had said in the past, we were looking
for that to be completed by June 30, but recognizing the mail with the 1st of
July falling in the middle of the week or on a Thursday, Monsieur Monnin had
suggested that we make sure that all registrations are in. So he will be giving until, I understand,
approximately July 6.
Mr. Plohman: Am I to understand there have been some changes
with that commission requested by the Francophone community?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I remind the member
that we have covered this area, but I am happy to provide him with updated
information here.
One of the questions that had been put
forward or of the issues that had been put forward in the beginning was that
there be a matter of confidentiality around the registration, and some of the
communities had been concerned about a wide number of people having knowledge
about whether or not they wished to register their child. So they had asked for the registration to be
seen only by Monsieur Monnin, and that was agreed.
But then, during the process of the
implementation, Monsieur Monnin said that there had been some discussion from
the communities. They were concerned to
have then only a single person to view the registration. So we have made an approach to Elections
Mr. Plohman: Just briefly, could the minister perhaps
undertake to provide a listing of any legislative initiatives under the acts
that she is responsible for at the present time at some time in the future, or
tomorrow's sitting, if possible?
One other thing under this section. I just wanted to ask the minister if she
could provide as well a listing of all of the boards and commissions that might
be under her responsibility here and the membership of those boards and commissions
at the present time. A handout in that
regard would be satisfactory if we want to move on.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have the
information. I just need to get it
copied, so I will hand it out tomorrow at the beginning of the session.
Mr. Plohman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(b) Schools Administration (2) Other
Expenditures $394,200‑‑pass.
Item 5.(c) Schools Information System (1)
Salaries $383,400.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could the minister
tell us what exactly will be expected at the end of this year? I understand that this part of the Schools
Information System is to deal with the schools rather than with the students. So what would we be looking for at the end of
the year here?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this project is on
schedule to provide Phase I functionality in September 1993. Phase I of the EIS will correct information
on school divisions, schools, courses and subjects throughout
In September 1993, the department will
provide the minister with a status report on the progress of Phase I and will
request authority to proceed with Phase II.
Phase II, detailed functional requirements, is planned to be completed
in December of 1993, and Phase II will provide information and analysis on
student demographic information in K to 12 throughout
Ms. Friesen: I am not sure I got those dates. Phase II is September '93 to December '93?
Mrs. Vodrey: Phase I will be completed in September 1993,
and then from September to December they will be looking at the detailed
requirements required for Phase II, and those requirements are to be submitted
to the minister by December '93.
Ms. Friesen: Then, from December to the end of the fiscal
year, does the minister anticipate that that data will begin to be collected?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, we would have to look at what the
detailed requirements were when they were submitted in December 1993. If there were no revisions or changes in
that, then we would expect to receive the first data September 1994, but again
it would be contingent upon the submission.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, are we looking at a
12‑year program here? That is, are
we going to begin by collecting material at the Grade 1 level and then adding
to it, or is it the intention to look at the system overall?
*
(2340)
Mrs. Vodrey: We are not looking at a linear compilation of
information; instead, we are looking to compile it more holistically, and we
would expect to be completed within a 24‑month period.
Ms. Friesen: Will reserve schools be included in this, and
will private schools be included?
Mrs. Vodrey: This will not include band schools, and it
will not include independent schools.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(c)(1) Salaries $383,400‑‑pass;
5.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $657,000‑‑pass.
5.(d) Schools Grants: (1) Operating Grants $573,684,700.
Mr. Reid: You had me worried there for a minute, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson. Big numbers seem to
pass very quickly in the Estimates process and we spend a lot of time on the
smaller amounts, at least that has been my experience.
I would like to ask the minister a few
questions about just general policy or requirements of the Department of
Education of school boards and divisions.
Can the minister give me an indication on whether or not school
divisions must keep a reserve pool of funds available for contingencies or
emergencies, and what that percentage might be?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, there is no requirement by
the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Reid: It was my understanding then, and the
minister can correct me if I am wrong, would that only be something that might
be advised by the auditors of school division funds?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that a number of auditors do
inform their school divisions or request their school divisions to keep a
surplus.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister give me an indication of
what might be an advisable amount that the minister's department might be aware
of that should be kept as a reserve fund?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we have not provided advice
on that matter to school divisions.
Mr. Reid: Does the minister's department keep
information or have information relating to the reserve funds of the individual
school boards or divisions in the province?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we do have that information, and it has
already been provided to the committee.
Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister can refresh my memory
then. I was not here to hear that
portion of it. Can she give me an
indication of what the reserve fund might be for Transcona‑Springfield
School Division No. 12?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, what we released were
percentages, and we did not release actual amounts relating to the school
division's actual dollars in that fund.
Mr. Reid: Is it possible for the minister to provide a
specific percentage, if she has that information available please, by division?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister, was that to be
tabled?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, I will table another
copy for the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), and as he will see, it is not
attached to a single division. We did
not look at breaching the confidentiality of those individual divisions. What I
have provided is a range of percentages that school divisions have kept as a
surplus or reserve fund.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would just like to clarify one thing with
the minister. This paper had been tabled
at one previous meeting?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, it was tabled for the
members.
Point of
Order
Mr. Plohman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. The member was not asking
for the same paper to be tabled again. I
told him about it, what he was asking for was a specific percentage for
Transcona and the minister did not have to retable an old document on that
basis.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of
order. The paper was not tabled. She was only giving information to the
member.
* * *
Mr. Reid: Through you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to the
minister, this is a long list of percentages on a single sheet of paper that
means absolutely nothing to me because there are no division numbers beside
it. So the range goes from 66 percent
down to zero with the provincial average at 6.4 percent. So how this relates to my individual school
division is beyond me. I am not sure,
the minister says she cannot release the information even on a percentage basis
for the school division. I do not
understand why not. Maybe she can
provide some explanation. Why is it not
public information?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we discussed this
approximately a month ago on the issue of confidentiality and how school
divisions individually manage their affairs.
The information that I understand had been released to the media was not
information that was compiled by the department nor released by the department.
There was some information released and I
understand‑‑there is some speculation about who actually released
that information, but school divisions, again, operated by trustees, would be
the ones who would be able to release to the member, particularly in his own
school division. If he wished to know
the amount of the surplus retained by his division, then he should approach the
school trustees.
In terms of the paper, I provided the
information for the member so he would have the same information as other
members. It was just an effort to provide him with the information so that it
might be helpful.
Mr. Reid: Does the Department of Education, the
minister's department, keep that statistical information? Is it provided by the different divisions to
the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we do not publish that
information. We do put forward the
information that is contained in the FRAME budget. We receive a variety of information from the
school divisions and we do keep some of that information confidential as the
school divisions would appreciate and wish us to do.
*
(2350)
Mr. Reid: I do not mean to belabour the point, but if
as a member of the public I can go and sit in at the school board meetings in
my community and my school board releases that information, as I understand,
for the public consumption, it is my understanding that all of the divisions in
the province have the same opportunity to do that with the members of the
public. If so, this is all on the public record already, so I do not see why
the minister says that this is confidential information. I do not understand, if the school boards are
releasing it, why it is not compiled by the department and why it cannot be
released as one document here.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the information is the
school board's to release. It is their
information, and the member, as he said, may go and approach his own school
division and have the figure released by his school division, but we would not
be releasing information for all divisions, nor would we be releasing the
information for Transcona‑Springfield.
Mr. Reid: Well I am not sure how the public is better
served by not releasing the information that has already been released. I just thought it would be much simpler to
have it compiled by the department and available in one document that would be
available here for members of the Legislature to view and do a comparison of
the different divisions throughout the province. I will not belabour that point. Others may want to ask further questions on
that.
I would like to move to a different
question relating to my own school division.
Some letters were sent to the minister at the beginning of this month
relating to a particular school in my community, and that is
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said, when this issue has been
discussed, in our opinion, this is not a school closure. The school will still be operating. As the member knows, there has been a
statement of claim filed. This matter
will go before the courts, and so those people named in the statement of claim
will be preparing their statement of defence.
With that statement of defence, then that will go before the court. Therefore, it would really be very
inappropriate of me to speak further regarding the information that may be
within the statement of defence.
Mr. Reid: I know that has been used before when there have
been other questions that have been asked for matters that could go before the
courts. It is my understanding that the
minister was asked a question by the correspondence, several pieces of
correspondence, before this matter had gone before the courts, and that the
minister had, to the best of my understanding, not replied to the
correspondence that is dated the 3rd of June and the 8th of June, it is my
understanding, before this matter was presented to the courts. Has the minister responded to this correspondence? If so, what indication has she given the
parents of the community that have children attending
Point of
Order
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to remind all members that under
Beauchesne 505: "Members are
expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or
tribunals which are courts of record."
I am not sure whether the matter that the
member has brought forward at this time is, but from what I have heard of the
discussion, it is before the courts, so I would ask that we choose the line of
questioning very carefully.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) speaks about process, and he may know that the whole matter of procedural
law is equally as important as the matter of substantive law. They are both studied separately. Therefore, the whole process and the
substantive issue are both equally important.
I do not have before me any of the
correspondence that the member is referring to, but we certainly have attempted
to deal with the situation as possible.
However, I would say that at the moment, as has been said before, this
has been a decision by trustees. Now
there is a statement of claim before the courts, and we have been named in that
statement of claim. So we will be
looking to provide a statement of defence.
Mr. Plohman: I am not trying to put the minister on the
spot here. I did not know that the
department was named as part of that action.
What I was trying to find out is whether or not the minister had
responded to these parents that have written to her letters that were dated
prior to that action being taken, and whether or not she had intended to take
any action on her department. Or is the
minister going to wait until the court process has concluded and followed its
normal course before she intends to respond to the parents?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the member has said that he
did not realize that the Department of Education and Training and I as minister
have been named in the statement of claim.
That is true. We will be required
to file a statement of defence, and that is what we will be doing.
Mr. Reid: It is unfortunate that it has to proceed to
this point, that something could have been done to resolve it. It was my understanding that the minister's
department was given a fixed period of time to respond within, and that her
department did not respond within that period of time before the statement of
claim was filed in the courts. At least
that is my understanding of it, and then the minister can correct me if I am
wrong on that. That is, I suspect‑‑although I do not know for sure‑‑that
maybe that is one of the reasons why the minister's department was named in
this statement of claim.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I hesitate to really make
any further comment. I can tell the
member that there was an extremely short period of time, it was less than a 24‑hour
period in which we were required to provide an answer. So now that we have been named in the
statement of claim, we really have to look at following the procedural law.
Mr. Reid: Okay, I thank the minister for that. I will not press her any further on it at
this time since it is before the courts, and I understand her reluctance to
comment further since the department is named in it.
In conclusion, my comments on this that
when the matter is resolved the minister will respond to the parents' concerns
on this matter.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, I as minister and we
as a department make every effort to work with Manitobans regarding the issues
that they bring forward, so we will look to continue to be working on any
number of matters that are brought forward, and we will look at the resolution
of this court matter when that is resolved as well.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: (d)(1) Shall the item pass?
Mr. Plohman: Until we receive the information on the
impact of the budget decisions by this government and this minister on all
school divisions for this year, which hopefully will be, as the minister has
indicated, next day, I wanted to just ask a couple of questions about a
specific situation.
The Kelsey School Division has provided a
copy of their budget and have indicated that the reduction they received this
year was 7 percent in revenue instead of the 2 percent which is the overall
average. This resulted in them having to
make a large number of significant decisions and cuts in their programming and
in their services.
Since the minister is going to have a
breakdown of this, I do not have to ask about how many divisions have been
impacted in a similar way, because we will probably have an opportunity to do
that next time, but I wanted to just ask about a couple of the impacts here and
see what the minister's viewpoints are on this.
One that they mention is a lunchroom fee
for each student. In this particular case, 800 eligible students are going to
have to pay $8 per month per child, payable in advance, who want their students
to stay for lunch at the school. I find
this rather a preposterous additional charge.
I understand why they have had to do it, in order to try and make ends
meet along with all the other decisions, but it is just another user fee that
parents are having to pay. When you take
eight times 10 months, it is $80, and if you have two or three children, you
are starting to deal with another significant cost.
I want to know from the minister what her
view of these kinds of fees are. Does
she see education moving in this direction further, that we are going to see,
and that it is quite satisfactory to see, these kinds of additional user fees,
or does the minister feel that this should be limited to the extent possible by
proper funding from the province?
*
(0000)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, we are always
concerned about providing the necessary funding for school divisions within,
certainly, the amount of money available and with expecting efficiencies that
Manitobans have also been asking to have considered.
This year, there has been, yes, an overall
reduction of 2 percent in the global funding, and then school divisions would
be presenting what their‑‑according to the formula, how they would
receive funding. Some divisions would
have a declining enrollment, and divisions would have a number of factors which
may affect how much of that funding available those particular divisions
receive. All divisions were asked to
look at efficiencies as well. They were
asked to look at administrative efficiencies, and they were asked to look very
carefully at how they spent the money within their divisions. Then some divisions made some decisions based
on how they were able to reduce their administrative function, for instance.
Again, a great deal would depend on the
kinds of decisions that divisions made internally as to whether or not they
then wished to have requirements attached to other kinds of services, such as
lunchroom services. So we would have to
look at what each school division accomplished within the funding formula and
with the amount of money available, and where exactly they were also able to
find internally the efficiencies.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, so the minister is saying that these
kinds of user fees are something that are just a necessary result of the
squeeze that the school divisions find themselves in this year. Is that
correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: I was saying that school divisions were
looking internally at their own efficiencies relating to how they run their
divisions administratively, how they are dealing with salaries and other
matters, and then divisions, depending upon, in some cases, their will to look
at those particular areas, they would then look to see if they needed to make
any other adjustments, such as the one the member has described. But again, that adjustment would be, I
suppose, a step following whether or not divisions had been able to find other
efficiencies, whether there was a will to find other efficiencies within their
school division.
Mr. Plohman: Does the minister have any policy on the extent
to which these kinds of user fees are applied?
Mrs. Vodrey: These are decisions that individual school
boards would be making. Individual
elected trustees would be looking at what they wished to do, in this case as,
obviously, the trustees of the Kelsey School Division have decided.
Mr. Plohman: The minister has no concern about user fees
in this regard?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I have expressed concern and interest
to all school divisions that they not affect the well‑being of students,
that they protect the integrity of the classroom, and in order for them to do
that, I have asked that they look to administrative efficiencies and that they
have looked at all ways available to them to control the actual costs while
maintaining that integrity.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I just mentioned this because it seemed
to me that a cost of $160 per year for two children, added to all of the other
costs that a person, say, on social assistance would be faced with would find
this very difficult. I am asking this in
light of the impact that this would have on very low‑income families as
to how they will be able to cope with this and whether their children will in
fact be able to have these services, or whether this is going to prevent
certain families from indeed accessing these services. That is the context with which I asked the
question of the minister and her own views on this kind of thing in terms of
its impact on low‑income families.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the member though has used
a specific school division. He has used
Kelsey School Division. I would like to
just point out to him that through the adjustments in the ed funding formula,
Kelsey School Division received almost $90,000 more through the Northern
Allowances in '93‑94. Though they
were a school division who is in the second year of the phase‑in, that
would account for some of the changes in their funding. But in recognition of the needs of some
school divisions, we did adjust the funding formula on the recommendation of
the ed finance advisory committee, and it certainly worked to benefit Kelsey
School Division. So if as a result of
that additional $90,000, Kelsey School Division determined that it would also
apply some other kinds of fees, that was strictly the decision of the trustees
of
Other matters for the member to consider
when he looks at the funding for Kelsey is that their enrollment did decline,
that they did limit the amount of their taxation. They did not increase to the total amount,
and that the mill rate in Kelsey School Division is below the provincial
average.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the information I had was that they
used $125,000 from the reserve, which left only $75,000 in the reserve, which
is very small for a division of a $10‑million budget, and they increased
their special levy by 15 percent, not 2 percent. Now maybe this changed from the time they
submitted this particular document. I
was not going to get into those figures until we had the overall figures by
division tomorrow, but since the minister mentions this, it seems to me that
they have gone much higher than a 2 percent cap. They were allowed, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to
exceed the cap because of the phase‑in.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, some of the information
that the member is putting on the record about Kelsey School Division does not
really jibe with the information that we have with Kelsey School Division,
particularly in the area of the use of the surplus.
*
(0010)
Mr. Plohman: It is possible that they have reconsidered
maybe when there were some adjustments made later on by the department. This is one of the original documents dated
the 24th of March of '93. So things
might have changed since then, and that is why I am asking the minister about
it.
We expect that we get the most up‑to‑date
and accurate information from the minister and her staff in Estimates, not
necessarily from documents that we have been sent various times throughout the
year.
One other question about the reserve,
though, does the minister have a minimum reserve percentage that is required
for school divisions? (interjection) Did you ask that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, that question was
asked, and, no, the department does not have a minimum percentage or a
recommended percentage of reserve.
Mr. Plohman: It would mean that they could go to zero; of
course, I do not think that would be wise management for any school
division. So it seems to me that, at
least in practice, whether it is a policy or whatever, it certainly would be
something that the minister and staff would want to support in school
divisions, that there would be some kind of reserve that is in place to deal
with emergency situations. Does the
minister agree with that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Our policy is that there not be a deficit,
and then beyond that school divisions will look at managing their money and
their affairs according to their division.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being after twelve o'clock, what is
the will of the committee?
An Honourable
Member: Committee rise.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Committee rise.
HEALTH
*
(2000)
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 of the Department of Health. We are on item 3. Continuing Care Programs,
page 79 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
Item 3.(a) Administration (1) Salaries
$344,800. Shall the item pass?
*
(2005)
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Chairperson, when we left off at five
o'clock we left off with a question. I
can repeat the question if the minister wants.
The minister has given us the projected
number of hours per month of direct service workers who will be providing
service for '93‑94. What I am
attempting to find out is, with the, as he puts it, $4 million extra in the
Home Care Assistance budget, and it may not be in this line of Direct Service
Workers, if he could sort of let us know where that money is. Is it in the line of Direct Service Workers
because of projected increases in some areas such as HCA? On the other hand, we see decreases in the
HSW classification.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): That is in essence
where the shifts are taking place.
Ms. Gray: Can the Minister of Health tell us, with the
increase in hours per month of home care attendants from the 202,975 of '92‑93
to a projected 225,756 for '93‑94, what will the increase in cost be of
that projection?
Mr. Orchard: I suppose we can provide that information,
but there are a couple of things I want to caution my honourable friend
about. I think we are trying to attempt
some kind of a process where this $63 million is not enough or is not real or
whatever. I do not know where we are
coming from.
The concept that I am trying to indicate
to my honourable friend is, in all areas of the department, we made difficult
decisions wherein we removed budget, hospitals, Children's Dental Health
Program, in all of those areas we reduced the budget. In this area, we changed the way we provided
certain services by adding in there contributions from the user in some areas,
et cetera. Instead of removing those
dollars from the budget, they are put back in to purchase a higher level of
services so that the Continuing Care budget in total is going to go up not
down, despite budgetary reductions.
We are projecting that is the level of
activity. If the demand does not justify
and warrant that expenditure, it will not be expended. If the demand is more, then we have some problems
coming up. The best we can do each year
is to give projections to the best of our ability, and that is what I have
attempted to provide to my honourable friend tonight.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister clarify, is the budget in
the Home Care Assistance increasing some $1 million or $4 million?
Mr. Orchard: If my honourable friend goes to page 57, my
honourable friend will see a $1 million increase. If my honourable friend understands the
explanation of comparable expenditures for comparable program last year to this
year, with the change in decision this year, we removed some $4 million in
expenditures on an annualized basis with the changes we made. We did not extract that from the budget and
have a net decrease of minus $3 million.
We reinvested those dollars to come up with the $4 million in
annualizations of reductions for the program changes plus additional resource
to the program.
In other words, we are not going to be
expending resource we spent last year on the free provision completely for
ostomists of ostomy supplies. We are not
going to be providing free supplies and equipment under $50. We are not going to be providing free of
charge housekeeping services and meal preparations for sole‑requirement
candidates. Rather than reducing the
budget by those decisions, we increased the budget by the net effect of
removing them to buy, what I attempt to call for lack of a more understandable
term, more medical needs in the community, so the program is increasing in
terms of the amount of medical care components that we can provide.
Ms. Gray: Under the Home Care Assistance detail then,
under Supplies and Services, Estimates of Expenditure, $13,996,700, does that
line include what was once a provision of all of the Home Care Equipment?
Mr. Orchard: No, that is not.
*
(2010)
Ms. Gray: What exactly is the Supplies and
Services? Where in this budget does the
Home Care Equipment line fall under?
Mr. Orchard: 21.3(b)(2) is the answer to the last
question. The answer to the first
question is VON, Community Therapy Services and FOKUS groups.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, out of 21.3(b)(2),
what the actual increase is in that line for this year, given that you know you
are going to be receiving revenue, and you are not going to be expending the
same amount as last year because of your change in policy for Home Care
Equipment?
Mr. Orchard: There is a reduction in the Supplies and
Services line, but there is a modest increase in the capital line by roughly
$175,000, and there is a Short Term Emergency Program provision of $610,000.
Ms. Gray: In the Home Care Assistance detail, where the
minister has indicated that when you look at the figures presented there is
about a one‑million‑dollar increase year over budgeted year over
budgeted year. That would be a
provincial number. Were there any under
or over expenditures, variations, within the regions?
Mr. Orchard: At the time of print, the projected cash‑flow
expenditure was over the budget, and it represented at the time that we
developed the Estimates, the $62,000, $81,000, as I have indicated, and that
was over our projected budget at the time that we developed the Estimates
timetable. I do not know whether we have
a regional sensitivity of that.
Madam Chairperson: 1.(a) Administration (1) Salaries.
Ms. Gray: With the increase of $1 million in the Home
Care Assistance budget, as the minister has indicated, and I will use the
figure $1 million as opposed to $4 million, I am assuming that the minister is
fairly pleased that he was not only able to maintain the Home Care base budget,
but to see a bit of an increase. Would
that be a fair assumption on my part?
Mr. Orchard: I think that one might reasonably conclude as
posed.
Ms. Gray: I am just wondering why in the 1993 budget, the
written budget that was presented in the House, that it states: "In the
Department of Health, we were able to maintain the Home Care base budget . . .
."
Then it goes on to talk about conversion
of personal care homes, et cetera. Why
in that budget statement would it not have talked about an increase? I cannot imagine the minister, if being able
to give an increase in a particular line, would not take every opportunity to
let Manitobans know about that.
Mr. Orchard: They did not accept my phraseology on the
Home Care Program for preparation of the budget speech, which would have touted
its success.
Ms. Gray: So the minister is saying that in the 1993
Manitoba budget and the information that Manitobans were given at that time
that in fact the statement that the department was "able to maintain the
Home Care base budget," although that is true, actually what he is saying
is there is an increase, so this is not quite accurate in terms of the
budget. Is that correct?
Mr. Orchard: There was a famous politician
once in
*
(2015)
But, in essence, if one looks year over
year, print to print, you see the bottom‑line figure going up from
$67,894,700 last year to $68,325,700.
Now, that is a variety of‑‑there is a variety. The short‑term emergency program at 609
is lottery funded, at 609, hence, although it will be expended in terms of
commitment towards the Continuing Care Program.
The accurate reflection of tax‑dollar
commitment is from 67.9, rounded figures, to 68.3, which is roughly a $400,000
increase year over year. A major
component of that is, however, the Home Care Assistance program which is up by
a million dollars. But in terms of the
total program, I think the statement in the budget is accurate and, I think,
was a statement that even in these difficult times we have maintained this
program although we are facing decreases in a number of other program areas
across government, including in this ministry.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, I cannot see how the
government can help but maintain the levels in the Home Care Program,
considering the major cutbacks to institutional programs and the commitment in
the minister's reform plan of last May that programs will be put in place and
maintained in order to ensure that service is provided to those who require it
in the community, in order to undertake the requirements of health care with
respect to not only the government's commitment but our need for health care in
general and its evolution.
The minister indicated he is still
involved in terms of negotiations with the VONs with respect to the VON
service. We have been given the figures
which indicate there is still a significant role for the VONs to play in the
home care system. Can the minister outline if there are any changes proposed
with respect to the kind of care offered by VONs in the future in the home care
system?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I want to take my
honourable friend back to my opening remarks.
I want to take him, because my honourable friend, I think, is attempting
to make the case that every time a service or a bed closure occurs in an acute
care hospital, there has to be an alternate service created somewhere in the
system to replace the service deliveries in the hospital.
I want to refer my honourable friend to a
direct quote from the
*
(2020)
The second quote that I want to give from
the same report to my honourable friend begins as such: "The hospital system appears to have the
capacity to handle more patients or to absorb a sizeable 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 type of 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 effective treatment of patients in available
beds."
It is fair to say that as we speak, the
system is doing exactly as that January report indicated it could do. The retirement from service of a number of
beds at our two teaching hospitals was accompanied by a number of bed openings
at Concordia and additional beds at Municipal and additional beds at Deer
Lodge. In addition to that, there is no
question, and I am informed that if one were to redo the data‑‑and
we can get into this during the hospital debate when we have staff here‑‑but
apparently the length‑of‑stay statistics on those programs continue
to improve, which indicates the need for fewer acute care beds in service.
I think that is the process that we have
discussed on a number of occasions in Question Period and Estimates, with the
most recent announcement of closures of surgical beds at St.
I think my honourable friend has to get
that into his mind and peel away the philosophical and rhetorical approach,
because I am not attempting to put any political connotation behind the report
done by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. They have no political agenda. They only have a science agenda to try and
determine what policy, what change directions are achievable and with what sort
of expectations as to what happens in the system as you shift the system. Their conclusion, and it is an accurate
conclusion, is happening across the length and breadth of
I will give my honourable friend an
example, and apparently this is not unique, but it is an example out of
It is still, I guess, a bit of a quandary
as to why that did not happen, but I suggest there is some intelligence why
this did not happen in
I mean one only has to look toward
*
(2025)
Again, I point out to my honourable friend
that in few provinces are there dissimilar budgeting exercises going on.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, at some of the meetings of
the minister's reform group that I attended, two images come to mind that have
been presented for the future of home care.
One is the role of the LPN. I
know there was a previous discussion with respect to this, but the role of the
LPN is presented as a possibility for some future direction or involvement in
home care that may not be existing today.
That is certainly the impression I got.
The second that I get is the role of Ten Ten Sinclair, with respect to
continuing care home care.
I am wondering if the minister might
comment about both of those issues, that is the role of the LPN and the role of
Ten Ten Sinclair.
Mr. Orchard: Well, I think I would be repeating a lot of
things that I said this afternoon in terms of the LPN issue. My honourable friend will know from the
statistics that I provided this afternoon that we are anticipating a constant
role for the LPN within this budgetary year as near as we can project.
Certainly, we see the future opportunity
expanding in terms of LPN services. It
is not in dissimilar service delivery areas that they are currently involved
in, in the community‑based care.
Secondly, there is the issue of long‑term
care staffing. As we indicated this
afternoon, I believe it was Central Park Lodge that reconfigured their staffing
pattern which saw some fairly substantial downsizing of the R.N. complement and
hiring of LPNs. That has not been the
case in a number of acute care institutions, however, St. Boniface being the
most recent one, but in the Personal Care Home division, I think there is
opportunity there. That opportunity will
be exercised later this calendar year as the 240 beds in the two facilities in
the northeast quadrant of the city of
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, my second question was
with respect to Ten Ten Sinclair. Now, I
recognize the kind of facility Ten Ten is, but I have seen it demonstrated on
the overhead charts that are shown as an example of where continuing care
and/or community care can evolve towards.
I am wondering what the minister or the ministry's plans are with
respect to Ten Ten and how it will perform its function in the future.
*
(2030)
Mr. Orchard: I think, maybe, my honourable friend might be
aware that I think it was last year that we had some increased service purchase
within Ten Ten Sinclair and the FOKUS cluster housing.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I am aware of that. Can the minister tell me what the plans are
with respect to the future in terms of Ten Ten Sinclair?
Mr. Orchard: I would not anticipate their opportunity to
be a provider of service to the ministry to change.
Mr. Chomiak: I will pursue this a little further under the
appropriate appropriation in terms of costing.
Respite care is an area that I continually
hear concerns raised about, and I had asked the minister earlier in the
afternoon about respite care. The
minister said that, as I understand it, it was confined to a service provided
by the hospitals, but I do get the impression that, given the demands that are
going to be placed on people in the community, respite care will require more
of an infusion of assistance than at present.
One of the reasons I can state that is it
was also a consideration that was raised at least at one of the reform meetings
that I attended that some thought should or could be given toward looking at
respite care.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I do not know whether my
honourable friend heard as he alleges that one of the reform meetings indicated
we were going to facilitate respite care in our hospitals. If he heard that, that would have been an
inappropriate state of direction. I
believe my honourable friend might have heard, however, that we are pursuing
increased opportunities in respite care in our Personal Care Home program,
which I indicated earlier this afternoon that I would be prepared to discuss when
we have reached that line and I have staff here.
Mr. Chomiak: Let me ask about the issue then of family
relief and providing assistance to family members who obviously provide service
and fill a gap for home care service: Is
there any expansion or any extension being contemplated with respect to
expanding family relief programs as offered by Home Care? Can the minister give me any indication of
the present statistical breakdown of the amount of family relief service that
is offered by Home Care?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that is in essence what
respite care is, and that is in essence the area of program that we are seeking
increased opportunities with. As I
indicated to my honourable friend, I will provide the areas of increased
opportunity as soon as I can have that information available, and probably we
can deal with it if my honourable friend wishes at the Personal Care Home line.
Mr. Chomiak: I am reading from a document entitled Policy
Guidelines, Continuing Care,
Is that particular statement still a
working philosophy of the Continuing Care branch?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chomiak: Is there any statistical breakdown of waiting
lists with respect to obtaining home care, by region or otherwise?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I do not think there is such a
thing as a waiting list in the Home Care Program. There is in the Personal Care Home
program. Needs are assessed and are
provided according to assessed needs within the regional budgets. As such, there is not a waiting list; there
may be a temporary delay until we can arrange the appropriate service providers
in their availability to someone who has been assessed as in need of continuing
care.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, is this a problem in the
ministry, and is there a concern or any kind of an effort presently underway in
order to reduce those periods of time, temporary delays, while individuals wait
to receive home care?
Mr. Orchard: That has always been an issue that we attempt
to achieve the quickest placement of service possible, and it is one of
constant review and focused opportunity for improvement.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
what is the time period for people to wait for their individual situation to be
referred by Home Care, particularly in the city? I know there was a concern a number of years
ago that the delay in case co‑ordinators being able to go out and do
assessments seemed to be quite a bit longer than what was occurring in the
rural areas. I am wondering if there has
been a change in that.
Mr. Orchard: I am informed that the assessment time frame
from the time it is asked for until it arrives can be from a couple of days
upwards of several weeks, but more often towards the lower end of that time
frame. Three weeks is an outside time
that it may take to get an assessment.
Ms. Gray: I know we asked the minister and he said he
would provide the information‑‑he may just not have it available
this evening‑‑was he able to find out the average caseload for case
co‑ordinators?
Mr. Orchard: We will attempt to have that tomorrow.
Madam Chairperson: 3.(a) Administration (1) Salaries $344,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $139,700‑‑pass.
3.(b) Home Care (1) Salaries $1,173,200‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $3,303,100‑‑pass; (3) Home Care Assistance
$63,187,500‑‑pass; (4) External Agencies $1,271,500‑‑pass;
(5) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations $609,600‑‑pass.
3.(c) Long Term Care (1) Salaries.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister can provide us with some details with respect to the fee increases
that are presently being brought into effect at the long‑term care
facilities, at the personal care homes, and if the minister can outline for us
what the threshold levels are with respect to the per diems
Mr. Orchard: As discussed earlier in the Estimates, and as
well on a number of occasions during Question Period, I will give my honourable
friend the general principles behind the change in per diem contribution that
we are asking in this budget cycle. I
will give my honourable friend the commitment that as soon as we have the
details, they will be shared with my honourable friend, because I doubt we will
be out of Estimates before that happens. We can revert back and have a debate
around them because I am always cognizant of advice that I might receive on the
issue.
*
(2040)
We based the decision to put an increased
contribution on the per diem from $26.50 as it currently stands to a maximum of
$46 per day with a couple of underpinning principles, first of all, that the
individual who is the panelled resident in a personal care home has the ability
to pay, and the second principle that we put behind that budgetary decision is
that should the individual who is a panelled resident have a spouse living
independently in the community, we would not insist on the additional
contributions above $26.50 to a maximum of $46 per day if those contributions
would compromise the spouse who is living independently to do just that, to
live independently.
I will tell my honourable friend where the
discussion is at. We have had a lot of discussion back and forth within the
ministry and within government to try and find that reasonable level of income
for the independent living spouse. For
an individual who has no partner living independently in the community, no
spouse living independently in the community, the issue has been relatively
straightforward, I would say. It is
based on income, and naturally there is a gradient by which incremental per
diems are charged if the income falls within an increasing income bracket that
the individual may fall in. For the
individual circumstance with no spouse in the community, it is relatively
straightforward.
I think my honourable friend would
understand that there are circumstances that can vary the amount of income that
one should remain with to maintain independent living, a circumstance, whether
it be in a house or an apartment, and those two living areas can make a
difference. I mean, a house can be more
expensive than an apartment, and we are very much trying to establish a level
which is appropriate given the variability of what we anticipate to be
variability of living circumstances of spouses in the community and certainly
varying circumstances, I think my honourable friend can appreciate of, say, the
city of Winnipeg circumstances versus the circumstances of someone who may live
in one of our smaller rural communities.
I mean, clearly, you know, an individual
who may live in a small community such as Darlingford or
As a process to safeguard the introduction
of the new fees, we are anticipating the set‑up of an appeal mechanism,
and the appeal mechanism that we are contemplating is to the Manitoba Health
Board, where we have a number of individuals with pretty substantial
backgrounds professionally and certainly with a good sense and feeling of what
the intent of these new charges are so that they can make a fair assessment on
an appeal basis of someone who believes that we have not met the basic criteria
of meeting ability to pay and of making sure that where, in the case of an
independent living spouse in the community, we have not compromised that
ability to live independently. So we
know probably in the first little while that there will be, as people get
accustomed to the new system, there may well be a number of appeals.
I will tell my honourable friend that I
have had a number of individuals either phone my home or ask me in public, at
public meetings, what does this mean? I
will tell my honourable friend where most of the concerns come from. They are not concerns of sons or daughters
necessarily whose mother or father has lost their partner through an earlier
death and are living in a personal care home.
They are not as concerned about the process. The concern is coming from spouses who are
living independently in the community, and they make the very important case
that they are barely making ends meet, et cetera, and is often the case. I can understand that. The automatic assumption is that it is going
up $46. I mean, that is sort of in the
communication.
You cannot help how a given program change
is carried, even though I have been careful to explain that. With all due respect, I think my honourable
friends in questioning have been careful in trying to not say that everybody is
going to pay $46. But that is the message that has tended to get out.
When I explain that it is only on ability
to pay and not compromising the independent living status, there is a great
deal of relief around that. They are
willing to do their fair share by and large.
When they have expressed concerns and want to know what is happening,
when they understand the general principles that I have outlined here tonight,
they are comfortable with that.
If they can afford to pay a little more,
they are prepared to. But they were not
prepared, and I can understand that, to see their independent living be
compromised by a per diem that would have required them to not be able to
maintain their independent residence.
*
(2050)
That aside, I want to indicate to my
honourable friend that this is another one of those issues, and I have
indicated this to him in previous questions, where we attempted to find out
what were the cost recoveries, what were the per diem charges as you went
province by province across
I think at $26.50, we were certainly at
the bottom end of the scale across
Let me also indicate to my honourable
friend that we understand that there are circumstances where some individuals
are not going to be overly enthralled with paying an extra per diem cost, et
cetera. But in today's day and age with
the financial pressures that government faces, this was one area of policy
change in terms of the per diems that I felt quite justified in recommending to
Treasury Board as one of the options this year.
The alternatives were that we had to find,
within the budgetary goals that we had to attempt to adhere to in Health care,
those resources elsewhere. They may well
have had to come out of the hospital budget, if we did not access increased per
diems here, or we might not have been able to increase the Continuing Care
budget to the extent we did. We might
have had to extract those savings that we talked about over the last couple,
three hours. We might have had to make
more difficult decisions like the Children's Dental Health Program.
When we advanced the principle of ability
to pay for someone whose entire care with the exception of some amenities are
covered‑‑shelter, laundry, pharmaceuticals, meals, personal care,
nursing care, medical care are all provided to residents of personal care homes‑‑I
did not think it inappropriate in this day and age to ask those residents of
personal care homes of those needs being met by the taxpayers if they had the
ability to pay. Say they had Canada Pension Plan or say they had other private
pension plans from their private career‑‑to ask for a portion of
those to be contributed towards the care.
Our care costs in personal care homes are
growing because of a couple of factors‑‑heavier care requirements
of residents. I think one can understand
that as you view the average age of admission going up to I think above 85 now,
the care requirements are quite substantial.
Where we have capital costs, of course, where we have renewed personal
care homes, those add to the cost of the program.
I did not think that it was an unfair
principle to advance in these times of financial constraint that those with
ability to pay ought to contribute more towards the cost of their care, not the
entire cost, but more towards the cost of their care so that we did not have to
either borrow against the future with an increased deficit or find other areas
of reduction within the health care program to curtail in some other areas the
department service delivery capability or, more importantly, to have to go to
every taxpayer in
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister outline
for us how much revenue will be generated by these increased costs?
Mr. Orchard: We do not know what this will mean to the
personal care home budgets, and we do not know because we have never approached
the issue on ability to pay before. We
made an estimate, and the estimate that we made was that it would amount to $6
million of increased per diems, anything above $26.50 to the maximum of $46. However, we will not know whether that estimate
is accurate until after the administrators of the personal care homes have gone
through their assessment of their residents in care.
We arrived at the $6 million by trying to
do a census
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, what will be happening to
this‑‑if the figure is $6 million or I appreciate that it is a
guesstimate‑‑$6 million increased revenue to the department be
earmarked for?
Mr. Orchard: Let me explain the current process so my
honourable friend understands what will happen personal care home by personal
care home.
Currently, right now, every resident of a
personal care home pays $26.50 per day.
That is based on minimum income figures of Old Age security, Guaranteed
Income Supplement, and leaving the resident with a monthly disposable income
for personal amenities. That $26.50 the
ministry does not see. It remains with
the personal care homes and after their global budgets are established based on
the level of care and other factors used to determine their budgets, the $26.50
per day per resident is deducted from their global budget. The province never sees those dollars.
The same circumstance will occur with the
assessment of the increased per diems on ability to pay. After the original assessment, whatever the
additional revenues from the per diems are will be deducted from the global
payment of each individual personal care home.
In that way, it will be reflected in the long‑term care budget as
providing probably more capacity in long‑term care, more personal care
home capacity, with relatively stable and possibly decreasing taxpayer
resources.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I do understand how the
system works, but I thank the minister for that explanation in any event.
The result therefore, the minister is
stating that if the figure, and we will use for the sake of the argument the
figure of $6 million, presumably $6 million less globally will be provided; $6 million
less globally provided centrally from provincial treasury to personal care
homes. The minister is saying that that
$6 million will be used to increase other programs or other services or other
capacity of long‑term care?
Mr. Orchard: Let us go to 21.7(f) Personal Care Home
program. It would appear as if we are anticipating our $6 million revenue to
make‑‑we were anticipating a level program of expenditure in our
Personal Care Home area and the $6 million anticipated revenue from additional
charges is reducing the demand on the taxpayers to support the Personal Care
Home program.
*
(2100)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister correctly
stated that this ability to pay is a significant departure from past practice
with respect to establishing the rates that residents pay at personal care
homes.
I appreciate the minister indicated
earlier that he would be providing details of this breakdown at some point in
the near future, but I am wondering if the minister has at this point any idea
of the threshold levels at which‑‑I presume the minimum will still
maintain itself at the threshold level of Old Age Pension, Guaranteed Income
Supplement and provincial supplement plus the goods and services tax rebate.
Can the minister give us an idea of what
the thresholds will be roughly with respect to the maximum?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that is exactly the
exercise we are going through now, and hopefully we have those figures
determined, and hopefully we are still in the Estimates of Health so I can
share them with my honourable friend and receive the wisdom of his comments.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate whether or not in
the reform document that the minister tabled last May there was any mention of
the fact that as part of the minister's health reform, residents at personal
care homes would now be charged based on their ability to pay?
Mr. Orchard: No, Madam Chairperson, that was not stated in
the reform document for the very reason that the budgetary circumstances, and I
can go through it again with my honourable friend if he wishes, the budgetary
circumstances that faced this province changed and changed very significantly
from May 14, 1992, until today.
Part of that change was an in‑year
reduction in federal support of funding of $120 million. That was built into the base of this year's
budget preparation plus, and I believe my memory serves me correctly that after
the reductions of transfer, based on the
In one year alone, base‑line
funding, federal government transfer payments‑‑and I am not blaming
the federal government, the same thing would have happened probably with a
Liberal government or any other kind of government you might have in Ottawa‑‑they
were providing $200 million less resource to
In terms of the personal care home
charges, no. I tell my honourable friend
that in January to May of 1992, when we were diligently working on the
preparation of the Health Reform document, there was no contemplation of
increase in the per diems in personal care homes. That was a circumstance that we advanced
given significantly changed financial circumstances.
I simply say to my honourable friend, I
have not heard yet‑‑but, of course, there is lots of time in
Estimates yet‑‑whether my honourable friend believes that this is
an inappropriate thing to do. I know my
honourable friend is seeking information.
I am providing my honourable friend with as much information as
possible.
I would hope that my honourable friend,
during the course of these Estimates, would take the time to indicate whether
the party he represents is in agreement or disagreement with this change. If in agreement, fine, I accept that. I would look forward to any suggestions my
honourable friend might have. I am very
genuine here, because in past times the member for The Maples has provided
suggestions which were most helpful when we had been changing programs.
If my honourable friend finds some
difficulties, I am willing to explore those difficulties with him when we are
able to provide the full details of at what income levels the maximum is
accessible, et cetera, and what the gradient of income is for the increased per
diems.
If my honourable friend is not able to
state that he is in favour of the extra per diems and indeed indicates that he
is opposed to them, I would like to know what my honourable friend might
suggest, in terms of $6 million of year‑in and year‑out
expenditures, to suggest where we get them from to support this program.
Secondly, to indicate whether, should they
ever become government‑‑which I think is a reasonable statement for
my honourable friend to make‑‑they would reverse the program of
contribution on an ability to pay and go back to the standard format of
everyone paying the same rate, because this is the time in Estimates that one
can make those kinds of statements of approach.
I would be appreciative of my honourable friend if he was able to do
that.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I have asked this question
several times during Question Period. I
am wondering if the minister could outline for me how those personal care home
administrators, who will be required to determine income levels based on the
ability to pay in order to implement these changes, will determine the income
levels without access to income tax forms of these residents which is a new and
radical departure with respect to determining rate and rate increases?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, that is again exactly the
process that we are determining right now.
I understand the sensitivity that some have expressed around their
income tax. There may be very reasonable ways in which we can approach this
that satisfies those sensitivities. I am
ever hopeful that we are able to craft those approaches in collaboration with
the Treasury Board and Ministry of Finance.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what the waiting
list is currently for admission or people on the waiting list who have been
panelled for personal care homes and just basically the provincial breakdown,
community versus people awaiting institutionalization who are in the hospital?
Mr. Orchard: This is not what I had this afternoon, but I
will tell you what the projection is.
Here I have average monthly number of
people on the personal care home waiting list is projected to be 1,431 for next
fiscal year. But I just had some
information just a minute ago in terms of the December 31, 1992, breakdown,
rural and urban. There were 1,350‑‑
Ms. Gray: Do you have the community and institutions?
*
(2110)
Mr. Orchard: Yes, I have that as well.
Yes, here we are. Now, this is March 31, 1992, so it is one
year old or a little better than one year old.
We had a total of 1,360 people waiting for placement as of March 31,
1992, and of those‑‑oh, I have to do some quick adding. Okay, I will give them to you by level.
For Level I there were 24 in the
community, 27 in hospital, so roughly a 50‑50 split. For Level II, there were 437 in the
community, 405 in the hospital; and, for Levels III and IV, it was 255 in
community, 212 in the hospital.
So all told in hospital you would have
640, roughly, awaiting placement of the 1,360.
I can give my honourable friend rural versus urban breakdowns if that
would be helpful.
Ms. Gray: Sure.
Mr. Orchard: You really want that? (interjection)
In rural regions‑‑this is
combined community and hospital‑‑there are 557 on the waiting lists,
and in
Now, I will tell you what. We will try and get the March 31, 1993,
figures for you because all I have given you here is what our projection
is: 1,431 as an average monthly number
of people on the personal home care waiting list. We will try to get that refined for you so
that we have March 31, 1993, figures, the same to what I have given you now.
Ms. Gray: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, only if those
statistics are readily available. If it
requires a lot of work, then I do not require them. I do not want staff to have to take time to
do it.
Mr. Orchard: I appreciate that, but I think we are
probably going to be able to acquire those fairly easily for tomorrow.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(c) Long Term Care (1) Salaries
$716,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $112,600‑‑pass;
3.(d) Gerontology‑‑
Mr. Orchard: I am always very quick to deliver on answers
when my honourable friend the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) asks.
Level I, these are for March 31, 1993, and
I will give my honourable friend the same things. Level I for the province in total: 21 in the community, 10 in hospital; Level
II, 401 in the community, 277 in hospital.
In Levels III and IV, we have 133 in the community and 296 in hospital,
for a total of 1,138 on the waiting list for personal care home placement as of
March 31, 1993. So in rough figures it
would be somewhere around 585 in hospital, so roughly 50 percent in hospital.
Now I will give my honourable friend the
total figures for rural
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the Supplementary
Estimates outline that there will be "increased emphasis on use of multi‑purpose
senior centres." I am wondering if
the minister might give a description of the multipurpose senior centres and
what the plan is for their increased use.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, that is our senior centres that
are funded as part of the community‑based programming, in parallel with
the Support Services for Seniors. We are
always working with the centres throughout
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, can the minister table a list
of support services available to seniors?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, while staff is finding that, in
terms of the senior centre funding, I would like to indicate that we do provide
grant funding to a number of multipurpose senior centres in
Basically, the provincial funding is in
support of salary and ongoing operating and approved program costs. The funding source is the Support Services for
Seniors program, and Manitoba Health's grant will cover about one‑third
of the centre's budget, with the other one‑third coming from local
community support, in other words, a partnership funding arrangement with
generally the local municipality within which the centre is located. Then, of course, the centre is responsible
for the balance of the budget through their own fundraising activities.
My honourable friend's question on the
Support Services for Seniors was what again?
Mr. Chomiak: If the member could table with us a list of
those services that are available for seniors.
*
(2120)
Mr. Orchard: In terms of services to seniors, in the well
elderly category, there are a series of supportive services: Age and Opportunity Centre Inc. with a
$452,900 budget; Brandon's Civic Senior Centre Inc. with a $50,200 budget; the
Gordon Howard Seniors Centre Inc. with a budget of $33,600; the Herman Prior
Senior Services Centre with a budget of $36,000; the Gwen Sector Creative
Living Centre Inc. with a budget of $32,500; Winkler and District Multi‑Purpose
Senior Centre, $25,600; the YMHA Jewish Community Centre of Winnipeg Inc. with
a budget of $16,200; and the Dauphin Multi‑Purpose Senior Centre with a
budget of $19,700.
I will indicate to my honourable friend that
all of those budgetary provisions on those multi‑purpose senior centres
have been reduced by the 2 percent grant to agency reduction that we have
consistently applied across the ministry so that every granted agency is in
general receiving 2 percent less funding.
In terms of Support Services to Seniors,
the frail elderly, we have quite a substantive number of organizations that are
funded: Ashdale Holdings Inc. out of
Ashdale are receiving level funding from $11,900; the Gimli Seniors Resource
Council is receiving increased funding, $234,500, an increase of some $11,100
year over year; the Bethel Mennonite Care Services Inc. is receiving level
funding at $29,300; the Manitoba Housing Authority, Brandon, $19,800, and that
is an increase of 5.9.
I want to tell my honourable friend that
where there are areas where there is modest increase, it is because of
additional program support at each of these centres. In terms of the Support Services for Seniors,
there is a growth pattern in with initial funding of sometimes even a part‑time
volunteer co‑ordinator moving in another year to full time and then from
time to time adding some other program activities; hence, the reason why some
groups, Support Services for Seniors groups, are receiving increased funding
this year over last.
Shangri‑la Inc. at St. Malo is
receiving a $13,000 increase to bring their total budget grant to $24,900. The Community Help Centre Inc. in Roblin is
receiving a $6,400 increase to increase their budget to $34,900. The Dauphin and District Community Resource
Council, which is in addition to the Dauphin Multi‑Purpose Senior Centre,
their funding is level this year at $33,300.
The Ethelbert Support Services To Seniors is level at $1,500, as is the
Fisher Branch Medical Facilities Inc. at $11,100. Foxwarren Leisure Centre Inc. is receiving
funding level with last year of $23,400.
Foyer Vincent Inc. of
The seniors Home Help Project in
Living
The McCreary Support Services to Seniors
will receive $300 less in grant support for a total $6,600 this year. The Moosehorn Handicraft Centre will receive
level funding at $9,900. Morden Services
for Seniors will be increased by $4,500 to a total budget of $41,500. The North Winnipeg Co‑operative
Community will receive level funding of $29,900.
The Oakbank‑Springfield Kinsmen
Senior Complex Incorporated will receive $2,200 increased funding to bring
their total budget to $56,800. The Oak
Park Lodge Incorporated in Woodlands will receive level funding at
$13,400. The Parkissimo Lodge at Miniota
will receive $100 less funding this year at $11,500.
The Plumas Senior Citizens will receive
$100 less at $9,200. (interjection) In general, I will tell you what. Rather than read this I will just highlight
some of the‑‑
An Honourable Member: Why do you not table it?
Mr. Orchard: Well, I want to read it into the record. It does not get into the record if it is
tabled.
Riverton and District Friendship Centre
Incorporated is receiving a $13,000 increase to bring their budget up to
$24,300. That is one of the major
increases in Riverton.
Manitoba Housing Authority Incorporated
Meals, $11,000 increase to bring their total budget up to $129,000. There is another major increase of Senior
Services of Banner County/Russell Concerned Citizens, an increase of $11,000 to
$26,500, and a $13,000 increase to Ste. Rose and District Resource Council
bringing their total grant commitment to $26,000.
I will give my honourable friend some new
Support Services for Seniors groups.
Camperville Senior Citizens group is a new Support Services for Seniors
funded group, was $6,600 in commitment this year. The Carman Community Seniors Resource Centre
will be newly funded this year at $19,600.
The Club Simon Devon, and I am not sure where that is, will receive new
funding this year at $6,600.
The Community Support Services for
Hadashville is a new program at $13,000 this year. The Hodgson Housing Authority will receive
new funding in the level of $11,000 this year.
The Killarney Congregate Meals for Seniors will receive $6,600 in new
funding to kick their program off this year.
*
(2130)
The Lakeside Lions at Matlock will receive
$6,600 to establish a new program. The
Lakeside Senior Services Centre, Victoria Beach, will receive $6,600 in new
funding this year to start their program.
The Morris area Senior Services will receive $13,000 to establish their
program for the first time. People Helping People of McCreary will receive
$13,000 in start‑up funding. The
Rupertsland Respite Care will receive $17,100 in funding to start their
program. The Rural Municipality of
Morris, Lowe Farm Friendship Centre will receive $6,600 in new funding to start
their program. St. Michael's Villa‑‑that
is in Transcona, I am informed‑‑will receive $6,600 to establish a
program there and Support Services for Seniors. The Senior Services of the
We have additional funding of some
$300,000 to accommodate in year some additional. We are always not certain as to the advance
stage that some groups get to, so there is a $300,000 fund in addition.
I think my honourable friend can see that
this is a fairly significant increase in Support Services for Seniors with some
26 new organizations in this year.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, of that extensive list,
can the minister tell us which of those services within the city of
Mr. Orchard: When my honourable friend posed the question
about a given region of the city, my staff indicated that, for instance, the
Bethel Mennonite Care Services Inc. was a service deliverer under Support
Services for Seniors funding that would provide some tenant support services. Broadway Seniors support project is likewise
able to do the same, as are Villa Cabrini Inc. and the Manitoba Eastern Star
Chalet, which are providing some Support Services for Seniors operations.
Now, if my honourable friend wants more
details in terms of the type of service that at a minimum those four would
provide, we would have to seek further information within the department.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, while the examples of
services the minister mentioned, such as the Bethel Mennonite service and
services at Villa Cabrini‑‑are those services in‑house?
(interjection) I will repeat it later.
No problem.
The services that the minister mentioned
such as the Bethel Mennonite service, service at Villa Cabrini, are those
services in‑house, or are they doing outreach services for anyone in the
community within a certain geographical area?
Does the minister know if those services have geography attached to
them, or can anyone who requires the service phone and ask for it?
Mr. Orchard: I think my honourable friend can appreciate
there is a fair degree of variability, but some of them have a circular area of
service delivery of up to 12 blocks, for instance.
Ms. Gray: One of the groups that was mentioned as
receiving funding was the Russell Concerned Citizens. What service do they provide? What do they do?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, if my honourable friend would
permit we will provide that information, say, tomorrow?
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what exactly‑‑under
the Expected Results it talks about reducing rates of home care utilization for
persons aged 80 and over, and also reducing utilization of personal care home
beds as measured, et cetera. Can the minister tell us, has the department been
able to track those Expected Results, and are we actually making progress in
that area?
Mr. Orchard: You know, I would like to be able to say
without equivocation that, yes, these are providing support, but unfortunately
our method of tracking is not‑‑appreciate we cannot do an
individual track. So what one has to rely
on is a couple of things that I think my honourable friend would find quite
relevant to the question.
We have maintained consistency and access
to the Continuing Care Program. In other
words, the assessment for need has remained consistent. It has not been increased, decreased. It has been a consistent approach that we
have used for Home Care Assistance.
Also, I think it is fair to say that over
the past number of years the criteria for panelling have by and large remained
fairly consistent. Maybe it would be
fair to say that as more sophistication in community supports through home care
meant that an individual would be provided with support services through home
care in the community for a longer period of time. But basically I think it is fair to say that
the medical and cognitive requirements for placement in a personal care home
has remained fairly constant. I will put
it to you this way, there has not been a major digression of the policy and the
application of criteria and guidelines.
Let me sort of share from 1984, which is
almost a 10‑year period of time.
Now these are point‑in‑time inspections, so they can vary up
and down, but as of March 31 and each of the years, starting with 1984, here
has been the number of panelled people, panelled and waiting for personal care
home placement.
It was, as of March 31, 1984, 1,690. The next year in '85, it was 1,670. In 1986, it was 1,510. In 1987, it was 1,336. In 1988, it was 1,185. It crept up for the next four years to 1,234
for calender year 1989, March 31. In
1990, it was down slightly to 1,223, back up slightly to 1,333 for 1991, and in
1992, 1,360. Then the actual for March
31, 1993, was down to 1,138.
Taking aside the two years of '91 and '92,
where there was a little bit of an increase, I think the consistent trend line
has been down in terms of the number of people at March 31 panelled for
personal care home placement.
The second thing I would like to draw my
honourable friend's attention to is the relative consistency year over year,
because I think we have had the 24,000 individual figure before us for at least
three years or maybe four years in terms of Continuing Care Program, in terms
of clients served.
*
(2140)
Now, we know that we are providing more services
to those individuals. I mean, that is
shown every year in terms of our increased budgetary commitment, and units of
service have been increased. We know
that fewer of the Level I and Level II people are being panelled for personal
care home placement.
I can only conclude that with a
consistency in the number of people in the Home Care Program, the Support
Services for Seniors program is providing that support outside of the formal
programs of continuing care or personal care home placement.
It is only from sort of a several‑year,
large‑statistic, if you will, tracking that I can indicate to my
honourable friend that I have confidence that for instance, the Support
Services for Seniors program is quite possibly one of our better investments in
terms of supported programming, very economic to the taxpayer and very
effective in maintaining independent living with, in some cases, the additional
support of the Continuing Care Program for individuals who may access other
aspects of Support Services for Seniors programming.
But I think the combination of Support
Services for Seniors, along with the Continuing Care Program, have very
substantially impacted‑‑well, not very substantially, I cannot
quantify that‑‑but have had an impact on the requirement for and
the placement in personal care homes.
Ms. Gray: Has the average age of persons first
utilizing the Home Care Program, in other words when they enter the Home Care
Program, increased at all over the last number of years‑‑increased
or decreased? It should not decrease.
Mr. Orchard: We do not have the ability to provide that
information because of the system of information gathering. It is manual, and we simply do not have an
easy way of developing that in comparison to having that sort of age statistic
in the Personal Care Home Program. (interjection) We have it in Personal Care
but we do not have it in Home Care because of the way we maintain our client
information records. So I am unable to
provide that information, but it would be a valuable component should we
develop the system to provide that information.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister or his
staff‑‑and I note this is not statistical‑‑have
anecdotal or basically a sense as to if that average age of people utilizing
home care, when they first utilized home care, if that age has increased?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, not that we do not want to
deal with the issue, but we are rather reluctant to give an average on that,
because for instance we are, with the Continuing Care Programs, supporting more
younger individuals in the community.
We do not have an easy sense of giving,
let us say, a senior population age profile into whether it is increasing or
decreasing. Staff is erring on the side
of caution and not giving a speculation on that.
Madam Chairperson: 3.(d) Gerontology (1) Salaries $252,100‑‑pass.
3.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $102,600.
Mr. Orchard: One piece of information on the senior
services of
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, do they actually then
develop services in the community and surrounding area of Russell? Do they develop services?
Mr. Orchard: That is correct.
Madam Chairperson: 3.(d) Gerontology (2) Other Expenditures
$102,600‑‑pass; (3) External Agencies $2,824,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 21.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $72,818,300 for Health, Continuing Care Programs, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
4. Provincial Mental Health Services (a)
Administration.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I wonder if I might seek
advice from my honourable friend the critic.
Would my honourable friend trust me to
provide as much information as I can tonight without calling the ADM, and any
questions that you might have that we do not have the detail for here that we
provide that kind of information tomorrow when Estimates resumes and take the
questions as notice this evening? I make the proposal to my honourable friend
the critic of the official opposition.
At quarter to ten or thereabouts‑‑I
would expect we are going close to midnight tonight. Is that sort of the agreement? (interjection)
Yes.
What I am wondering is whether at this
hour of the evening I would get my ADM down here in the next three‑quarters
of an hour or whether the committee would be content with my answering as many
questions as I can with staff that I have here and have my ADM present tomorrow
for any detail that you may wish and if there were questions that I did not
have detail on, provide that tomorrow?
Would that suit, rather than bringing an ADM in at this hour of the
evening? (interjection) Yes, in Mental Health.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, in response to the
minister's suggestion, and with all due respect to the minister who I know
basically answers a lot of the questions without the assistance of staff, but
does the minister have a briefing book and have details on some of the
committees that have been formed in regard to the mental health reform and
update on some of that information because that would be some of the nature of
the questions that I would be asking?
Mr. Orchard: Let us call a three‑minute recess,
Madam Chair, if we could.
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Madam Chairperson: This committee will recess and reconvene at
9:55.
The committee recessed at 9:50 p.m.
After
Recess
The committee resumed at 10:10 p.m.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The Committee of Supply dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Health, please reconvene. We are on item 4. Provincial Mental Health
Services (a) Administration (1) Salaries.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister could provide us with a brief update as to the progress of the reform
in Mental Health, particularly in the city of
Mr. Orchard: I know that probably somewhere in here, if I
go through all of my material, I could pull out the announcement that was made
about two months ago announcing the phasing out of acute psychiatric beds at
Misericordia Hospital, St. Boniface General Hospital and Grace Hospital. Those beds are to be phased out between now‑‑and
if my memory serves me correctly, in Winnipeg Region‑‑and I think
the 1st of September.
A number of initiatives were commenced in
the community. All of them represented
quite significant expansions in terms of community‑based support, whether
it be the Crisis Stabilization Unit expansion at Salvation Army on Henry
Avenue, or the new Crisis Stabilization Unit funded at Sara Riel, or whether it
be the Mobile Crisis Team where we, by increasing the resources, increased the
number of hours of operation, et cetera, through some fairly significant
increase to our self‑help groups who are going to be, have been and will
continue to be an integral part of our reform.
Now, I think my honourable friend will
want to know the status of the beds at the three hospitals, to know whether
they are in service or when they are going to be withdrawn from service, and I
will be able to provide that information to my honourable friend upon the
arrival of my assistant deputy minister.
But if my memory serves me correctly, all of those will be retired from
service by approximately the 1st of September.
A significant amount, and I am hazarding a guess, probably 85 percent of
our community‑based services are already in place.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, perhaps this is going back
a bit. The expansion or the opening of the new facility at the Health Sciences
Centre, can the minister just give us an update if, in fact, all of the
intended beds are in full operation?
Mr. Orchard: I do not believe they are, but again, if we
could bank that question and then get that information when Mr. Toews arrives.
Ms. Gray: I am having a little difficulty in phrasing
the questions because a number of the questions I have are of a technical
nature. Can the minister tell us in
regard to the four‑year plan to reduce the beds at the Brandon Mental
Health Centre, does part of that planning have a component of worker adjustment
and retraining, and in fact is that also a component of the downsizing of
Misericordia, Grace, et cetera?
Mr. Orchard: Let me deal with Brandon Mental Health Centre
first. Yes, that is a separate committee
structured specifically to assist in those areas involving identification of
redeployment opportunities first from the institutional setting of care giving
to the community; secondly, to identify opportunities for redeployment for
instance to other areas of the ministry and to other departments within
government; and thirdly, to identify appropriate retraining opportunities that
may be required as the Brandon Mental Health Centre is retired from service.
We announced the intent to downsize and
phase out the Brandon Mental Health Centre approximately a year ago, and it was
subsequent to that that we began the discussions around the labour‑adjustment
strategies involving the union administration and Manitoba Health and the Civil
Service Commission.
Now, in terms of the Winnipeg scenario
with the three hospitals involved with some downsizing of program at Grace and
St. Boniface and the elimination of the inpatient psychiatric service at
Misericordia, any opportunity for labour adjustment is provided through the
Labour Adjustment Committee that we discussed some time ago in conjunction with
the other acute care sector labour adjustment strategies.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the minister have an
organizational chart, actually, for the whole department, but specifically, as
well, for this particular division?
Mr. Orchard: We will provide that for my honourable friend
tomorrow.
Ms. Gray: If we could possibly go back to the‑‑just
to clarify about the number of beds in Health Sciences Centre, if in fact they
are in full operation.
Mr. Orchard: Eighty‑nine of the 113‑bed
complement are currently in service.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
when the remaining beds plan‑‑if the plan is for them to come on
stream and possible target date?
Mr. Orchard: We do not have target dates right now and are
leaving those beds, similar, I think it is fair to say, to the Children's Hospital
beds where, since Children's Hospital opened in about, well, I guess it was
'85, a number of beds were never commissioned for service.
Now we are leaving the, I think it is, 24
beds at psych health without commissioning them at the present time. I think it is fair to say that as the whole
shift in reform in the
But we are not, at the present time,
moving ahead with commissioning of those beds until we have a little more
insight and a little clearer direction in terms of the overall plan for the
Winnipeg Region per se.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, is there a possibility
that all of those beds might not be opened at all, that the total 113 might not
be opened?
Mr. Orchard: I hesitate to get into speculation, but I
suppose one could say that is a possibility.
However, I would envision that there will be an opportunity as the
*
(2220)
It may well be that the wisdom of advice
and long‑term planning in our mental health system in Winnipeg would lead
to the commissioning of those beds and replacing acute care beds in other
institutions and have a consolidation of care.
That may well be a possibility.
We have attempted in our planning exercise
in mental health, and we have been criticized for this, rightfully or
wrongfully, of maintaining a degree of flexibility in the planning process so that
we can accommodate the workable ideas that may come from our regional councils
and our provincial advisory council as well, as greater knowledge is gained
from experience with shifting the system.
So we have, if you will, deliberately not commissioned those beds at the
psych health building. They can be a
valuable resource in waiting as the system comes to grips with the next, say,
phase of changes.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister referred to
the expansion of replacement services in the community, such as
Certainly, I think all of them were in
existence before, but he is, I am assuming, referring to an expansion, and if
he could just give us a bit more information as to what that expansion
involves.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, the six additional crisis
stabilization unit beds at the Salvation Army,
I think the additional funding for the
self‑help groups has flowed. I
believe they have undertaken an increased level of activity as a result of
that.
We are probably 85 to 90 percent along on
most of the initiatives that were announced in either establishment of new
resource and program in the community or a building of existing resource.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, could the minister just
give a bit more detail on what this proposed safe house is? Is there a particular organization that is going
to be developing that particular service?
Mr. Orchard: The fall opening is anticipated because there
are some discussions left to be concluded amongst a support group which are
mainly the self‑help organizations who are sponsoring the safe‑house
concept. I think my honourable friend
could appreciate that we have maybe some governance issues when you have
several self‑help groups involved that have yet to be resolved.
I think in general terms everyone agrees
maybe on conceptually how a safe house can provide a needed community‑based
service. That is being, I think,
probably‑‑I am looking for the right word‑‑with words
put to paper in terms of the role and the service‑delivery guideline and
mission of the safe house. It has not
been as yet completed. That is why I
indicated earlier on that we expect that to be completed, say, this fall.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, could the minister tell
us, with the Mobile Crisis unit, that program, what has been the increase in
the number of SYs associated with that program?
Have the criteria of that program changed?
Mr. Orchard: The guiding policies of the Mobile Crisis
Team are essentially the same as they were when it existed as a unit staffed
with three SYs. That staffing complement
has been increased to 11, and the hours of operation have been four in the
afternoon until two in the morning. With
the increased staffing we now provide five days a week, 16 hours a day
service. That is during the
weekdays. Then on the weekends we are
able to offer Saturday‑Sunday 24‑hour service, with the increased
staffing complement.
Ms. Gray: Can any individual access the Mobile Crisis
staff? Who has access to these individuals if you feel you are in a crisis and
need the services of a mental health worker?
Mr. Orchard: The hospitals and emergency are aware of the
service contact arrangements, as are the City of
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, since this expanded
service has been there with the increased number of staff providing service
over more hours, can the minister tell us what type of workload has evolved
from this? Are the staff busy or what is
the intake like?
Mr. Orchard: We will provide the most current information
we have on the level of service activity, and I believe we can make that time
sensitive to the 16‑hour shifts versus the weekend 24 hour.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what the analysis
was that was used in terms of looking at the types of services that should be
in the community, given that a number of hospital beds would be closing down? I know it is an imprecise science, but I
guess my question is, how was it arrived at?
Let us take Mobile Crisis service as an example for the sake of
discussion. How was it arrived at that
this was a particular type of service that it was felt that there would be
needed more of, i.e., a need for the increase, and how did you arrive at 11
SYs?
*
(2230)
Mr. Orchard: Basically, to provide the kind of expanded
hours that we thought appropriate, in terms of 16 hours instead of eight
roughly five days a week, and then of course, 24‑hour service coverage,
as to why the Mobile Crisis Team with three staff complement was a successful
new community service.
Our experience in other jurisdictions
where we have had an opportunity to discuss some of their service provisions,
they found that for aspects of a service delivery, the Mobile Crisis Team was
an effective addition to the community service delivery components. We have some sense of confidence that it is
appropriate in
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, could the minister explain
for us a little bit more about the Intensive Case Management program?
Mr. Orchard: The Intensive Case Management concept,
generally, but not exclusively, utilizes registered psychiatric nursing and social
workers. Each individual has a caseload
of from 15 to 20 individuals and attempts to provide early interventive and
supportive services to those individuals so that their care is managed more
effectively and they do not end up, if I can be so blunt as to say, in the
revolving‑door syndrome with the institutions. Again, I think it is fair to say that this
was not the first time this has ever been tried. Other jurisdictions have used this method of
client support in the community and found it to be effective. I think it was the conclusion of the advisory
council that this would be an appropriate addition to the array of community‑based
services.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
what is different about what he just described and what mental health workers
normally do in the day‑to‑day activities?
Mr. Orchard: Well, I think as the name would suggest,
Intensive Case Management, lower caseload and probably some of our more chronic
and more acute service needs individuals are part of this Intensive Case
Management group.
Ms. Gray: Who makes the decision as to which
individuals are referred to these staff who provide this Intensive Case
Management? How is that determined?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, in terms of developing the
type of individual who would become part of the caseload of one of the
individuals in the Intensive Case Management, they are current recipients of
service. They tend to be, as I indicated
earlier, individuals with higher needs, more chronic needs, certainly
individuals who have periodically been admitted to some of our inpatient
facilities.
In consultation with the staffing of
regions, the divisional staff as well as psychiatrists and other professionals
who provide services, the initial caseload was selected from the overall or the
entire group of individuals who are on the various caseload lists of mental
health and community mental health workers.
They tend to be those individuals who have a greater requirement of services
and also tend to be the type of individual that was more frequently
hospitalized because of their chronic condition and its periodic acuity, the
objective being that if we can provide for those individuals with better
management day to day, week by week through a lowered caseload by the
professionals who are our Intensive Case managers, maybe, if I can put it in
direct terms, that hour of service every couple of days might forestall a more
serious crisis which would require in the past a pattern of
institutionalization.
We think that there is probably a pretty
significant opportunity for reduced readmission with these individuals by
having the Intensive Case Management model at work.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, how many SYs are there
devoted to the Intensive Case Management program, and what is the average
caseload?
Mr. Orchard: There is a total staff complement of 10, but
one is a support staff, so there are nine individuals. The caseload range is 15‑20 for the
nine individuals.
Ms. Gray: Does the minister happen to know of an average
or the frequency of contact that these mental health workers are spending with
these clients? Is there any average or
pattern?
Mr. Orchard: We will be able to provide, I think, a little
better sense of that a couple of months down the road, because appreciate this
is only several weeks old in terms of its implementation. So we cannot give my honourable friend a
definitive experience rate today.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, has there been an
evaluation component built into, well, not just this program but the other
programs, and who is providing, or who is actually doing the evaluation?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, the evaluation aspect of the
effectiveness of these changes is certainly part of the process, to assure that
we are achieving what we believe we can achieve. There will be pre‑ and
post‑survey of the individuals involved in the program.
*
(2240)
One of the components which I think has
not necessarily been part of any of our analysis on effectiveness of program
changes is a client satisfaction survey to see whether they find the new
management style, the new approach to service delivery, whether they deem it to
be a better service, that they have been able to manage their lives in a more
stable fashion or not? Of course, there
will be the overall analysis of admission to acute care inpatient facilities,
utilization of the crisis stabilization units and whether there is any
moderation of access to them and those types of statistical analysis as to
whether we are having an effect.
We expect and certainly hope, and I think
it is the expectation of those who have been advocates of the Intensive Case
Management that we will see a reduction in both admissions and inpatient days,
where there perchance are admissions, and certainly at a lowered utilization of
the institutional side of the mental health service delivery system.
If that is achievable, then clearly we
will have been successful in meeting at least one of our goals in terms of an
active replacement of a better service for those individuals. As I say, part of the follow‑up survey
is an experience attitude survey of the individual for them to indicate whether
this is a better approach than what they have had available to them in the
past.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
those answers. For individuals who are
probably well known to the Misericordia psychiatric centre, possibly the Grace
psychiatric centre, is there individual planning that is going on for a number
of these individuals to ensure that they hopefully will not need some type of
inpatient service that will no longer be available at those respective
hospitals or that the chances of their having to use the hospital system would
be reduced?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Madam Chair, that is entirely part of
the process with the hopeful result that we will not see the necessity of, for
instance, the inpatient service delivery.
That is done through a number of the community‑based service
provision venues, whether it be Crisis Stabilization Unit, Mobile Crisis Team or
the Case Management.
I think my honourable friend could
understand that a, how would I put it, regularized group who normally accessed
Misericordia would be able to plan as best possible their community resource
needs so that, without the inpatient capacity at Misericordia, we provide a
suitable supportive environment in the community.
Let us not forget that, should they
require some inpatient service, there is now an additional option in terms of
the Crisis Stabilization Unit from the fact that the Salvation Army one is
expanded in its physical capacity and the Sara Riel is a new unit, as well as
remaining inpatient capacity at Grace, Health Sciences Centre, St. Boniface,
Victoria and Seven Oaks, so that there is still the opportunity for, if need arises,
that inpatient admission as well.
Ms. Gray: How many individuals are being planned for in
this way?
Mr. Orchard: Two components to that question, two
components of answer. First of all, the
current inpatient census for cared‑for in alternate settings and
alternate supportive fashions at St. Boniface by the mid to end of May‑‑May
23, I believe, was the last inpatient day in the 24 beds there‑‑currently,
the gradual reduction at Misericordia, we are down to eight of the 21, 13 have
already been discharged with supports in the community. The other eight, we expect to have alternate
arrangements achieved by the end of this month.
In the Grace, 20 beds are expected to have a similar process of
replacement services completed by the end of August, the 1st of September, as I
indicated earlier. That is for the current inpatient client group.
As well, the other individuals, who from
time to time may well have been admitted to those facilities, similar service
provisions are available within the community that we hope will provide their
care needs in large part in the community without the need for inpatient
admissions.
I do say that should inpatient admission
be required, that the remaining hospitals do have maintaining capacity in that
regard.
Ms. Gray: Of those individuals that the minister has
referred to, are there very many of those individuals who would be considered
elderly or particularly who may be in need of home care service? Is the minister aware?
*
(2250)
Mr. Orchard: There were some on the longer‑term care
requirement assessment who have been accommodated in some of our longer‑term
care facilities. That is not dissimilar
in
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister has
oftentimes referred to bridge funding when he speaks of mental health reform,
and I am wondering if the minister could tell us what is the amount of bridge
funding that is being made available in this budget year specifically for
mental health reform.
Mr. Orchard: In terms of the Winnipeg Region, $1.1
million, $1.2 million of bridge funding, some of which was made available prior
to March 31 with the announcement of the Winnipeg reforms. That allowed the individual sponsor groups to
commence development of their services in advance of the retirement of some of
the beds from service.
In terms of the Brandon region, Westman,
west Central and Parkland, we have available some $2 million in terms of bridge
funding there to establish the community‑based array of programs prior to
the phasing down, year one, three or four, of the Brandon Mental Health Centre.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, in regard to the Moditon
Clinic (phonetic) services the department provides and that have been provided
out of the hospitals, has there been any rationalization of those services or
amalgamation of those services?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I am advised that there is not
any expected major change in the current clinic service provision. It has been
reviewed and, by and large, will be maintained in the current configuration of
service delivery.
Ms. Gray: In regard to the Moditon Clinic (phonetic)
that is currently‑‑or my understanding is that it still occurs at
189 Evanson. Can the minister tell us
why that particular service happens to be at 189 as opposed to being out in
some of the district offices, suburbs, given that over, my understanding is,
half the people who utilize that service are not from the inner city?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, that service has been part of
189 Evanson ever since I have been minister, because I can recall, doing the
departmental tour that was one of the areas I went to. As a matter of fact, I
met with some of the staff that were providing services there.
Now, I cannot offer to my honourable
friend any specific reason, but I would be interested in knowing if my honourable
friend believes there is maybe a better way to deliver that service. I would be pleased to hear advice in that
regard.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, I suppose one of the concerns
about that particular service at 189 is that it always seemed like a
ghettoization of services in that particular area. When you look at the statistics,
interestingly enough, there were over 50 percent of individuals who utilized
that clinic who actually did not live in the inner city; they lived in other
parts of the city. At one point, there
was discussion about actually having a mobile clinic where in fact we utilized
existing offices where we have staff and actually took the clinic out to the
clients. That is why I asked the
question.
I wondered, as well, if the region was
going to be picking up services that were offered from Moditon (phonetic) by
Misericordia, or will Misericordia still maintain that type of service?
Mr. Orchard: In terms of the Misericordia component, that
will remain as part of the outpatient service component of the
I know I had a meeting at my office of
individuals who had that very expressed concern, because they were utilizing
Misericordia's outpatient services and were greatly concerned that they would
not be there, of course, the concern being that these individuals had been
served well. That was not the intention
and is indeed not what is happening with Misericordia.
In terms of 189 Evanson, I am intrigued
with my honourable friend's discussion and suggestions. I will not make the commitment to my
honourable friend to take it up in the immediate future, but post completion of
the session, I certainly will further discuss with staff of the Mental Health
Division my honourable friend's comments.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, are there any plans
to look at the services of the Moditon Clinic (phonetic) at Misericordia?
I can appreciate that I am sure that
service is valuable to the clients, but one would think that with an outpatient
service there as well as the service that the government is providing that you
might see some efficiencies or even improvements in quality of service if you
looked at some type of amalgamation. Is that going to be looked at all at some
point in time?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, it is fair to say that that is part of a
review process on the clinics themselves.
Certainly, I will say, at risk of opening a can of worms, which it might
well do, if my honourable friend makes that suggestion in the belief that it
would make better use, I am open to that suggestion because that is exactly the
kind of process we have attempted to engage in, in terms of arriving at a shift
in services in our mental health system.
We have explored any number of ideas and suggestions, and some of them we
have been able to accept basically as suggested. Others we can accept, you know, with
modification, partially.
*
(2300)
I simply say to my honourable friend I
cannot give an answer in terms of whether there is an opportunity for the kind
of more effective relationship by combining, say, 189 services with
Misericordia services, but I am not adverse, again, to having that sort of
discussion and asking those types of questions.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister
could take me through‑‑because our mental health services have been
generally based on an institutional model‑‑a situation where
someone would appear, say, in the emergency ward at present at Misericordia
Hospital in a crisis situation. The way
I now understand it, if the person was in an acute crisis situation and would
not be admitted, there would be an option for that person to be admitted, if
that was the determination of the staff presumably there, to some other
institution, how that route would go; or alternatively, what action the
caregivers in the primary facility, what activities they would engage in, in
terms of channelling that person to the right source and stabilizing that
individual.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, dealing with the Misericordia
circumstance specifically, the Misericordia in the emergency department has
recently the services of a registered psychiatric nurse there to undertake
assessments of an individual presenting in the circumstances my honourable
friend outlined. Depending on the
individual's circumstance and assessed need, any number of options could be
triggered, including the Mobile Crisis Team, to help the individual stabilize
and return to their home environment.
If that was not appropriate and some
alternate inpatient need was assessed, then either of the Crisis Stabilization
Units could be utilized at Salvation Army or Sara Riel then, of course, with
the more severe circumstance, a recommendation for admission to one of the
inpatient units at the other community and/or tertiary care hospitals, that
assessment would be undertaken, as I say, in the Misericordia circumstance, by
staff with the assistance of the services of a registered psychiatric nurse.
I do not know whether that answers my
honourable friend's question, but we have one of the components that we want to
have as soon as possible, but it is also part of the acute care bed
restructuring in discussions that are going on as a central bed registry for
psychiatric beds. Now, we have an
informal arrangement involving the heads of psychiatry at the two teaching and
the three community hospitals so that we have an informal bed registry for that
latter circumstance where an admission to one of the five hospitals is deemed
to be the most appropriate course of action.
So unless my honourable friend has more questions of more detail, I will
let my answer rest.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, there is an informal
arrangement now in terms of the bed registry.
I assume that we are moving towards a formalized bed registry
arrangement that will be co‑ordinated amongst the community hospitals,
the two teaching hospitals, presumably the Sara Riel and Salvation Army, they
would provide it. Can the minister give
us some idea as to when that central registry would be in place, in terms of
determining?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I wish I could give my
honourable friend that kind of definite time line, but it is part of the acute
sector bed registry. Appreciate that
going back a year and a half ago or two years ago on the acute care side, with
the quick response team investigation on the young fellow from the Interlake
with the broken leg, one of the recommendations there was to implement a bed
registry system on the acute care side.
There is, although there are different
programs, acute psychiatric versus general surgical medical beds, that the
principle of the registry remains consistent so that we would want to have the
formal registry advanced at the same time the registry for other acute beds is
in place for the Urban Hospital group.
But that is why I indicate to my
honourable friend that in the interim, because we do not have a comfortable
expectation on time line that I can share with my honourable friend in terms of
the formalized central bed registry, that is why we have in place in collaboration
with the heads of psychiatry an informal registry that is working now and no
doubt will be the platform or the basis from which we are able to become part
of a central bed registry for the acute care system, including psychiatric
beds, with some integrity of experience based on the current informal
arrangement.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, just returning to my
original example, if an individual showed up, again we will use Seven Oaks as
another example, under acute difficulty, the same scenario would follow through
from Seven Oaks in terms of‑‑effectively we are talking about
triaging a person, are we not? Is that
not what would happen? Are those systems
all in place? I just am not entirely
clear how that would work.
Mr. Orchard: The Misericordia example was a better one,
because they do not have within their facility the inpatient capacity, or they
will not have as of the end of this month, so their management system is
somewhat different than, for instance, Seven Oaks, or for that matter, Grace or
Victoria.
But the hoped for common approach to
people presenting an emergency will be as described for Misericordia at the
other hospitals, even though they do have inpatient capacity, because one of
the hoped for goals of the central bed registry is to assure ourselves that
those beds are utilized for the most acutely ill individuals.
I am not pointing fingers or anything, but
there is a tendency, when you have individual institutions with individual
practitioners, to make sure your catchment area is served first and foremost
and there is even, I think, from time to time maybe a little protection of
capacity, if you will. That really, I
think if one thinks about it, is not an appropriate management practice in today's
environment, and that is why we are attempting to bring some fairly reasonable
criteria of need around the system, so that those with the greatest need will,
if required, be placed in the acute care beds as they are available.
*
(2310)
There is a twofold agenda here. I mean, let us face it, as of the 1st of
September there will be 65 fewer beds in the system. Now, certainly we anticipate and we believe
that the array of community‑supportive services will, in fact, provide
the replacement services and forestall or forgo the need for inpatient
admissions. But we are realistic. We know that is not going to be the
case. There is going to be need from
time to time, individual by individual, for inpatient placement.
What we want to try to assure over the
next number of months is that those individuals most in need access that
capacity, and that may mean differing admission patterns in the existing
hospitals that maintain their acute care capacity so that people that they
would maybe, as a practice a year ago, say, admit as a matter of practice
pattern, now would consider those individuals to be more appropriately served
in a different fashion with a community‑based service such as the Mobile
Crisis Team, such as referral to caseworkers, such as possibly a referral to
Sara Riel or Salvation Army.
It is a changing practice environment that
we are encouraging and fostering so that, you know, the example, as I said
earlier, at Misericordia, is fairly straightforward because they do not have
the capacity to admit, but I would suspect there would be, as we move on the
reform process, some consistency of that process in Misericordia applied to
other parts of the system as well, the only exception being that if it was
Seven Oaks versus Misericordia today or 1st of July and acute admission was
necessary, it could be achieved at Seven Oaks versus a move to, say, Health
Sciences Centre or the Misericordia.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, clearly the minister
understands the necessity of the co‑ordinated or the utilization of
almost a basic triage system around all the facilities, because clearly one
major concern, and I will raise the question, is people getting lost in the
system and particularly those who are used to the institutional‑based
care and the process ending up not getting the help that they need. To that end, I just wonder if the minister
has any comments in terms of the tracking, for lack of a better word, and the
co‑ordination of services so that people do not get lost in the system,
particularly during the changeover phase.
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend's question is
appropriate, and the way we are attempting to manage and mitigate against the
lost‑in‑the‑shuffle concern is through a fairly sizable
committee, co‑chaired by the chief provincial psychiatrist and executive
director of the Mental Health Division, Dr. Hugh Andrew and John Ross. The other members of the committee are a
nominee from Sara Riel, a nominee from Salvation Army, in terms of the Crisis
Stabilization Unit, representative from the two teaching and three community
hospitals, as well as five individuals representing consumers.
The review is one that attempts to assure
that individuals who have been used to a service provision in a given hospital
setting where that service is downsized or curtailed, such as it is in Misericordia,
that there is a reasoned process for providing alternate service provision to
those individuals. This committee, co‑chaired
by Mr. Ross and Dr. Andrew, is currently functioning to assure that.
I think my honourable friend, I would have
to indicate to him, that we are not going to be perfect in the process over the
start‑up months, but certainly, in anticipation of some of those
concerns, I think we have attempted very diligently to put the planning and
implementation mechanisms in place so that, if we have those circumstances, we
have a forum in which we can deal with them and try to resolve them so they do
not reoccur.
Mr. Chomiak: One area that I admit to not completely
understanding is the Mobile Crisis Team operation. I do not understand; if an individual is
suffering a crisis at home, will the team come out to that individual's home in
order to provide assistance, firstly?
Secondly, will the team come to a hospital or an institution to assist
the staff there that are involved? What are the parameters and the
flexibility? Perhaps the minister can
just give me a general outline of how it functions.
Mr. Orchard: In both circumstances, if called upon, the
Mobile Crisis Team can provide that kind of service directly in the
individual's home, can be called upon at, say, an emergency at the hospital by
either the emergency staff or, say, City of Winnipeg Police in terms of maybe
their involvement with the individual.
Another type of circumstance which would flow from the second, where it
is an emergency presentation, would be the Mobile Crisis Team accompanying the
individual to their residence and getting them settled back in with the support
and make sure that they can manage in their own living environment. Both those circumstances are an appropriate
part of the Mobile Crisis Team's responsibilities.
Mr. Chomiak: Would it be safe to assume that an individual
who is in crisis or encountering difficulty would have access 24 hours a day to
(a) the emergency wards of the various hospitals, (b) the Crisis Stabilization
Units and (c) the Mobile Crisis Teams?
Mr. Orchard: Yes in all cases, with the exception of the
Mobile Crisis Team five days during the week where there is only 16 hours of
service, but the Crisis Stabilization Units are 24‑hour access and so are
the emergencies, but the Mobile Crisis Team is only 24 hours on the weekend,
Saturday and Sunday.
Mr. Chomiak: I do not wish to duplicate questions that
were previously asked, but when we talked about case managers‑‑these
are the assertive case managers, I assume‑‑are they in place and
functioning now, and how many individuals are they dealing with?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, in response earlier, there
are 10 individuals assigned here, nine of whom are intensive case managers, and
one is a support staff. All nine are in
place. Some are still completing training for their responsibilities, but a
number are already in place.
*
(2320)
Their caseloads are anticipated to be 15
to 20 and, as discussed earlier on this evening, will tend to be the higher‑needs
individuals and the more chronic individuals and individuals who tend to more
commonly have a pattern of readmission to our acute care facilities.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, are the home outreach
people in operation now? Is there a home
outreach program?
Mr. Orchard: I think maybe what my honourable friend is
asking about is the Mobile Crisis Team, which would undertake that type of
service provision as part of their service delivery responsibilities.
Mr. Chomiak: I am just looking at a sheet put out by the
department that describes some of the various services that are offered in the
community crisis stabilization: Mobile
Crisis Team, assertive case managers, day hospital, day treatment, home
outreach, which has, quote, trained nonprofessionals and professionals who
provide intervention in the home.
Mr. Orchard: I am sorry for the misunderstanding around
that. There are two areas of opportunity here.
There are some funding provisions to both the Salvation Army and to our
intensive or assertive case managers whereby they can retain the services of
paraprofessionals who after stabilizing the individual in the home could stay
for an extended period of time to provide the kind of support that may be
deemed needed by either the Salvation Army in their assessment at the Crisis
Stabilization Unit or by our intensive or assertive case managers.
I think my honourable friend can
appreciate, the paraprofessional will not necessarily have all of the skills
that the assertive case manager would have, but the assertive case manager has
used their substantial skills to‑‑how would I put it in more
understandable terms?‑‑complete 75 percent of the stabilization
process leaving a paraprofessional to complete the balance, if that is a fair
analogy. I know it will be highly
suspect by any professional that might read these comments in the debate but
that is in essence the concept.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, is the minister aware
whether or not any of these actual home outreach processes are actually
functioning at present, or are they on the books as it were?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, in the case specifically
to those individuals, that is in the process of development and will be in
addition to the assertive case management, as that program gets more up to
speed.
As I indicated earlier, of the nine
individuals some have completed their training process and are assuming their
responsibilities, others are still in training.
That is part of the growth of that program, that we have not yet got a
great deal of experience and will have in the near future.
Mr. Chomiak: I take it the proposals for the safe house
are not in operation. Can the minister
give us a guideline as to when that might happen, where or what the
developments are in terms of ongoing discussions, and what the parameters might
be on the safe house?
Mr. Orchard: As I indicated earlier to the member for
Crescentwood, the self‑help groups are collaborating around the safe‑house
concept. We expect that this fall they
will have completed their arrangements for implementation of the safe‑house
concept. There are some issues around
governance with a number of self‑help groups involved, and those will be
resolved.
I think there is a fair degree of
agreement around the concepts of how and what the safe house should do, but it
is the governance issues and the finalization of the, if you will, protocols of
operation that are being developed. We
expect to have that completed this fall and the safe house in operation this
fall.
Mr. Chomiak: The entire question of housing is obviously
of a good deal of importance in this area and could probably take us off on
many, many tangents with respect to all sorts of areas of mental health or
people's ability to function in the community.
Suffice to say, the question that I am
asking is, are there any special initiatives in terms of assisting or improving
the situation with respect to people who are in some difficulty and their
housing environments?
Mr. Orchard: Under the co‑ordination of CMHC
Winnipeg there are some 115 housing units that will be co‑ordinated by
their efforts, and 20 housing units in collaboration with Winnipeg Housing
Authority will be in addition to that.
The time line would be later this year.
July 1 for the first 115 individuals and then the other 20 by fall, say,
September.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I am very pleased to hear
that. Are these new additional housing opportunities being provided for
individuals?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, not all of them. Some of them are existing housing
opportunities that are being co‑ordinated. It was part of the Canadian
Mental Health Association, Winnipeg Region, and it is some existing resource
supplemented by additional units that are coming from Winnipeg Housing Authority. So in total, an opportunity for additional
living arrangements for 40 individuals.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister and the
former member for The Maples and myself‑‑I am not certain if it was
passed on to the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray)‑‑received a
document June 11 from the Canadian Mental Health Association for our use in
Estimates, to assist them and to assist us in determining the base‑line
data, et cetera.
*
(2330)
I am wondering how we can go about providing
this information in the matrix for the Canadian Mental Health Association
because it strikes me as extremely valid and useful. I wonder how we can best obtain this
information without necessarily burning up committee hours.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I just asked my assistant
deputy minister if my office had forwarded that over. If it has gone over, it has not gone over to
his attention. So I will have to follow
up on that tomorrow and find out the status of how we have dealt with it within
the office, because I am 99 percent sure that we have received it in my office.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister, and perhaps we can deal
with it next time or deal with the methodology of how we can approach the
Canadian Mental Health Association in putting this useful information together.
The question of prevention obviously comes
to mind in this particular area. I
wonder what initiatives have been undertaken or will be undertaken in a
preventative sense by the department this year?
Mr. Orchard: Let me deal with it in a couple of areas and
then my honourable friend can pose additional questions. I think the overriding principle behind the
shift from institution to community is to attempt as best possible to provide
an earlier intervention, an earlier support of an individual requiring support
through a mental health crisis. That
earlier provision of service to me is our most sensible approach in terms of
prevention.
I have often used the example that, and
this may be an extreme example, but I think it illustrates where we are trying
to move. The system up until very
recently would have had a hypothetical individual living independently and
experiencing a deteriorating mental health circumstance to the point where the
only response to provide service was a presentation at an emergency ward and
probably an admission, involuntary or voluntary, to an acute psychiatric
bed. That had been a probably often‑used
response.
Today, that same individual, if the
individual was part of a case managed study or the Mobile Crisis Team, but
particularly in terms of the assertive case manager and their home support
network that is to be in place midsummer and ongoing, instead of having our
resources dedicated to stabilizing the individual after a crisis by having anywhere
from several days to several weeks of inpatient services with, I think it would
be fair to say, at least the opportunity for 24‑hour care, whether there
was 24‑hour care is probably unlikely and to replace that with several
hours per week of assistance so that the individual did not reach a crisis
circumstance. The analogy that I can
make as closely as anything is, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure, as our grandmothers always told us.
That is in essence the shift we are trying to make. That is No. 1 in terms of a prevention
philosophy.
Secondly, I believe that one of our most
valuable resources in terms of a changing mental health system are our self‑help
groups. Our self‑help groups are
composed primarily of individuals who have had direct personal or family
experience or close friend experience in terms of varying mental health
challenges and problems. I think in
terms of prevention the self‑help group can be as assistive and as
helpful to‑‑let us deal with the issue of schizophrenia, for
instance. I think the self‑help
group‑‑I get the new name not right and I do not want to be‑‑at
any rate, the schizophrenia self‑help group. I apologize for not having the name on the
tip of my tongue at this late hour. I
believe that their knowledge and the parents who have experienced a child going
through schizophrenia can provide other parents newly experiencing that
difficulty at home with a family member with probably the recognizing signs and
the support and how to manage and probably provides as much in terms of
education, hence prevention, as probably any other part of the system can do.
So from that standpoint, I offer my
honourable friend those two: the one as
a general approach to the shift that we are trying to undertake in the system,
and the second what I perceive to be the very valuable opportunity of self‑help
groups in terms of providing a very significant component of support and advice
and care and education to not only consumers and their immediate families, but
also to the general public at large, because a number of the self‑help
groups undertake speaking engagements and meeting formats and presentations to
a wide variety of audiences including from time to time our high schools
throughout Manitoba. So they create an
awareness of mental health.
I guess if I can put it as simply as
possible, I think probably the self‑help groups work very diligently in
terms of‑‑I have the poster up in my office‑‑the stop‑the‑stigma
aspect by making more and more people aware of the circumstances so they can be
not frightened by, but supportive of, the individual who is suffering from a
mental illness. So if I can start the
discussion with that answer, my honourable friend might have more questions.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, one of the experiences
that I have noted is that many of those self‑help groups and many of
those involved in the field providing that kind of service have grown up around
the institution, specifically the community hospitals. I am wondering what inducements are there for
those institutions and those groups to continue.
Let me give an example. With the psychiatric beds being closed at
Misericordia, will all of the various community activities being undertaken by
that institution be allowed to continue?
When I say be allowed, quite clearly they have to be recognized in terms
of the financial contributions, et cetera, to be able to continue given the
shortages and the demands on the hospital budgets. Has recognition been given to those kinds of
resources that are available in the community?
Will recognition be given to those kinds of resources in the community
to provide assistance in a preventative sense and in an ongoing sense?
*
(2340)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, as near as I can attempt
to answer my honourable friend's question, yes, with the Misericordia
specifically, their venue of outpatient services will remain as a component of
their service delivery to the community on an outpatient basis. Certainly a part of that would be helping
individuals manage better to prevent crisis better, et cetera.
Mr. Chomiak: Does the minister recognize the significance
of pastoral care, et cetera, in this kind of role and activity and the
significance of that in terms of the various institutions and otherwise?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, the role of the church,
whether it be within institutions or at large, in terms of service to the
community is an important component of helping individuals cope with mental
illness personally or within the family.
It is not narrowed only to the institutional side but a larger, I think,
responsibility and significant obligation that the church community has assumed
for a number of years. It is fair to say
that they probably have been leading most others in terms of recognition of
community support for individuals suffering from mental illness.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I have assumed most of our
discussion has centred upon adult services for adult patients. I am wondering what initiatives have been
undertaken in terms of assistance to children and children's mental health?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, there are a number of
initiatives specific to adolescent services.
Let me try to deal with it basically region by region.
In the urban service area of
We are now engaged in working through the
details of implementation, governance and the utilization of some additional
resource capacity for adolescent program in the city of
I think that is an appropriate
recommendation because I have oftentimes said in other areas, and mental health
is no different, that probably if we were to sum total our services and co‑ordinate
them in a more appropriate fashion, we would probably resource services
adequately if we had the ability to co‑ordinate them effectively.
I think that is recognized by the working
group, and that is one of the initiatives that will be part of, not only
additional resources that are part of the change there, but a better co‑ordination
of existing resources, so that maybe we can make them more effective and in
essence more largely available and helpful.
In terms of the Westman Region, year two
of the reform in Westman Region involves, I believe it is eight beds of
adolescent inpatient capacity for the
In association with that will be the
availability not only of the inpatient capabilities but also outpatient
services, again in a substantially enhanced capacity for Brandon and Westman
Region. It is an area that has not been
particularly well resourced in the past.
Similar propositions are being advanced by
Norman and Thompson Regions, and although we have not received approval for
either of those reform plans, we expect to in the near future. But a component
of each, of Norman and Thompson, is an adolescent component so that we have
those kinds of service delivery opportunities in the northern regions of the
province as well.
Ms. Gray: Just following up on a number of the
questions that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) asked. The minister referred to these
paraprofessionals that were part of this home outreach program. Could the minister tell us how these
paraprofessionals are trained, and are they hired on casual payroll, or what is
their status?
Mr. Orchard: For instance, in terms of the Salvation Army,
because the Salvation Army is managing the intensive case management, the
Mobile Crisis Team‑‑but the Salvation Army, in co‑ordinating
the services, the Mobile Crisis Team from time to time will need to have an
individual called in to help someone.
That individual will be, I am anticipating
and speculating, someone employed casually and not necessarily regular or full
time, because, I am sure my honourable friend could appreciate, it is not sort
of a steady requirement, if that is the way to put it.
*
(2350)
There could be any number of professional disciplines
involved, including for instance psychiatric nurses or social workers. Their training opportunities will be
undertaken to the degree necessary depending on their existing trained skills
development to provide after‑care support, if that is the way to work it,
the way to phrase it, after the Mobile Crisis Team has provided‑‑let
us pick a number and say 75 or 80 percent of the professional input to the
individual client‑‑and the second group of individuals, as
paraprofessionals, would provide an extended period of time of support in‑home.
Ms. Gray: Where will this pool of professionals or
paraprofessional individuals come from or be recruited from, and who will be
providing training, or will they need any type of specialized training?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, in this case, the
Salvation Army will be responsible for the maintenance of the pool. I guess a similar analogy that one could make
would be the staff pool which is utilized in terms of the Continuing Care
Program, sort of a similar roster of availability, and Salvation Army in
collaboration with the Mental Health Division would be responsible for
providing the appropriate training.
Again, I have to say that depending on the
training and the skills set that the individual might have, that training
component can vary. If you have a
registered psychiatric nurse, appreciate that they have a fair degree of
trained experience in this regard now.
If they were the individual who was perchance on the roster, to be on
call for circumstances like this, they would be able to manage quite nicely,
because in some circumstances would be taking over from service provision by
one of their trained confreres, for instance.
Ms. Gray: The minister also was speaking about the
Mobile Crisis Team and talked about how part of their responsibility could be
that they could be asked to be consultants or resource people at an emergency
at a hospital. I understand, or I
recognize the fact that the expansion of the Mobile Crisis Team is new, so
probably statistics are not available.
Given the original program where there were three or so SYs and that
there are statistics available, because of the new computerized statistical
gathering in mental health, does the minister have a sense of, even with the
initial program before its expansion, what percentage of the staff time was
spent in doing some type of work or intervention at a hospital as opposed to at
a residence or somewhere out in the community?
Mr. Orchard: We do not have past experience with the team
composed of three individuals, because in their more confined focus of service
delivery they were not providing services at emergency, for instance, in
hospitals, as the expanded Mobile Crisis Team will be. So we do not have a before and after
comparison I can give to my honourable friend.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, so really the focus of the
Mobile Crisis Team, that program has changed then and it has expanded in terms
of the role of the staff and the role they play in the continuum of mental
health services.
Mr. Orchard: I think that is a fair assessment, because in
going from three to 11, we have been able to increase the hours of service and
the opportunity of focused service provision including emergency assistance.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, does the Mobile Crisis
staff, I am assuming, have direct access then to the crisis stabilization beds
at Sara Riel and at Salvation Army? That
would be my first question. Also, do they
have access during the weekends and evenings to psychiatrists, should they need
to bring in a psychiatrist to consult with or provide medication?
Mr. Orchard: That is correct, Madam Chairperson.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, the minister also, in response
to the member for Kildonan, spoke about the report of the child and adolescent
services subcommittee and that the report has been approved by the provincial
council or provincial advisory council.
The minister referred to co‑ordination of services as being one of
the issues that was presented in that report.
Can the minister indicate to us some of
the other recommendations or issues that came out in that report in regard to
the child and adolescent services for
Mr. Orchard: Well, there was also some recommendation of
expanded services. If I can indicate to
my honourable friend that I am a little bit ill at ease in terms of discussing
some of the potential details, other than to comment that the process has
recognized the need for (a) co‑ordination and (b) for some additional
services, and we are in the process of planning the actualization of those
recommendations and will be able to, I think, make announcements mid to late
summer as to how we are able to accept the recommendations and put them into
action in the system.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, is there a particular
amount of money that is in this budget, '93‑94, that has specifically
been designated for child and adolescent services, or new monies?
Mr. Orchard: Yes, there is some financial resource
available, if and when the recommendations are accepted and we have a better
sense of the dollar commitments required.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
what that potential amount of money is?
I am not suggesting that it would all be used, but is there a specific
amount or top limit that would be potentially available for development of
services?
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend is playing an intriguing
game of poker, and she is making me give away the farm.
There is an annualized commitment of a
half million dollars that we believe up to could be used. Appreciate that with the march of time
certainly that commitment will not be expended this year, because we are likely
not to have more than, oh, say, four to six months of experience. That is the ballpark, in terms of estimated
financial commitment, that could be focused with appropriate service provision
recommendations going through the clearance processes.
Ms. Gray: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
which group of community mental health staff are currently now housed at the
new Health Sciences Centre building‑‑new psychiatric centre
building?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that we have
between eight and 10 individuals working out of the region serving that general
catchment area of the city who are based out of the psych health building,
community mental health workers.
*
(0000)
Madam Chairperson: As previously agreed, the hour being 12 p.m.,
committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): The hour being after 10
p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow
(Tuesday).