Manitoba Hansard — 14 April 1987 (Sitting 28, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-28

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 14 April, 1987. Tim e - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presen ting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Stand ing and Special Commit tees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Mi nister of Hi ghways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I wish to table the Supplementary Information booklet for the 19 87- 88 Estimates Review of the Department of High ways and Trans porta tion. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Mo ti on . . . Introd uction of Bills . .

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 20 students from Grade 5 of the Centennial School. The students are under the di rection of Miss Rosemary Martel, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Min ister of Finance. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Sugar beet industry - layoffs at Fort Garry Plant MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is for the Premier . Today in the media, the Min ister of Agriculture is quoted as saying that the Provincial Government is prepared to allow the Manitoba Sugar Refinery in Fort Garry to close before it agrees to Ottawa's terms for aid to beet producers.

In view of the fact, Madam Speaker, that the closure of that plant would result in 93 permanent and about 15 0 part-time jobs disappearing in Manitoba, 75 jobs in the trucking ind ustry to di sappear, and indeed the livelihood of 400 sugar beet producers put at risk, is the Premier prepared to abandon all of these people - tho se workers in Fort Garr y, those workers in the trucking ind ustry, those producers spread throughout Manitoba - is he prepared to abandon all of these jobs in order to prove a point with Ottawa? 975 SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition asked a question, I presume he's inter ested in hearing the answer. The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, we're all certainly concerned in sofar as the sugar beet indus try is concerned, and the Province of Manitoba, that's why certainly the Min ister of Agriculture has been attempt ing repea tedly to ensure that Ottawa live up to its obligation; the ob li gation that the Cons ervatives in Ottawa provided, to this House in fact, to Manitobans as a whole, in 19 85, to ensure that there would be a national sweet ener poli cy.

It was on that basis that the Province of Manitoba entered into a program, once only . Unfortuna tely, the Conservatives in Ottawa have not done so and, Ma dam Speaker, at some point there has to be enough is enough - enough is enough ins ofar as offload ing of federal respon sibili ty onto the Provincial Government.

For 25 years, as the Minis ter of Agriculture has poi nted out, even unde r the da stardly Li beral Government that was supposed to be so alie nated from the western agriculture; at least that government never turned their backs on the sugar beet producers of the Province of Manitoba in the same way the Mulroney Conservative Government is doing in Ottawa now. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Ma dam Speaker, comments like enough is enough I think will be very disturbing to Manitobans who are looking for some leadership and some support to preserve jobs in Manitoba. Sugar beet industry - tripartite agreement MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the tripartite agreement between Ottawa, the producing provinces, and the prod ucers is to be signed with Alberta on Thursda y of this week; in view of the fact that the House of Commons will recess after Thu rsday until the 27th of Alberta; and in view of the fact that sugar beet producers - sorry, 27th of April - in view of the fact that sugar beet producers, Madam Speaker, will have to begin to plant their crops before that date of the 27th of April; will the Premier reconsider the position of his province to support the workers in Fort Garry, to support the truckers in Manitoba, to support the producers - th ose 400 prod ucers throughout this province - and set aside his differences, his vendetta against Ottawa, and act in the best

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 interests of the people of Manitoba and preserve the jobs for Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madant Speak er, this issue that we are dealing with is an issue of fairness, an issue of how a national gover nm ent, who are elected for all Canadians, not just for those in other parts of the count ry, and how a national government is not treating the producers of this country fairly .

Madam Speak er, we have and continue to stand up for Manitoba farmers, notwithstanding the agreement that we had with Ottawa, a different agreement that they had with Alberta, that we shall not put any further funding into the sugar beet industry beyond the 19 85 crop, the now Minis ter respon sible for the Canadian Wheat Board has acknowledged that he has broken that agreement in Parliament. Ma dam Speak er, notwithsta nding that breaking of the agreement, this province amended its position and said that we're prepared to put an additional $3 million to support the sugar beet ind ustry for the next 10 years.

Now members opposite are accusing this side of the House of breaking an agreement? Madam Speaker , we have called on them, and I call on them again, to tell their colleagues in Ottawa that they have not treated Manitob ans fairly , and that's their responsi bil ity. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question. MR. G. FILMON: Ye s, Madam Speaker , the issue is stubb ornness, the issue is stubborn ness on the part of this Premier . . . MADAM SPEAKER: With a supplementary question. MR. G.

FILMON: . . . and this government. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please! Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Certain ly, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: Will the honourable member place it? MR. G. FILMON: In view of the fact that the producers have agreed to the tripartite stabilization agreement; in view of the fact that Ottawa has agreed to it; in view of the fact that the Province of Alberta has agreed to it, because it, as a province, wants to preserve the jobs in the sugar refining industry and for the producers and the truckers; will this Premier not abandon his ideol ogy, abandon it . . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. G. FILMON: . . abandon his hatred for Ottawa and support the producers and the workers of Manitoba? 976 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind the honourable member that question period is not a time to debate, that a question should not repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused, and a question should be brief. A long

preamble to a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same kind of reply, and a supplementary question should need no

preamble on many counts. Could the honourable member please place his question? The Honourable Leader of the Opposi tion. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , given that we are talking about just over 300,000 this year to preserve 400 jobs for Manitobans, will this Premier not screw up his courage and act on behalf of those who are going to lose their jobs other . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That question is out of order. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, why is that question out of order?

MADAM SPEAKER: The question is out of order because it repeats, in subject, a question that was already answered or to which an answer has been refused. MR. G. FILMON: It hasn't been answered, Madam Speaker. MR. D. ORCHARD: There is no answer. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Is the Honourable Leader of the Opposition arguing? MR. G. FILMON: No, Madam Speaker, I'm attempting to ask a question. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member can put his question, if his question is in order . Sugar beet industry - preservation of jobs MR. G.

FILMON: Ye s, will the Premier act to preserve the jobs in the sugar indu stry in Manitoba and act today? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I am pleased that now the Federal Government has someone negotiating on their behalf, since they'r e failing to respond to our commitments. Madam Speaker , if that is the suggestion of the Federal Government, we have already put that proposition forward; why have they not accepted it? We have put forward $3 15, 000.00.

Madam Speaker , I want to answer the Leader of the Opposition and tell him why Alberta is prepared to sign tripartite. They just rebuked the federal Conservatives and said that "we're willing to change parties, change

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 our name in Alberta," and they got $350 million into the Province of Alberta for the oil ind ustry. That's why they're prepared to sign the tripartite agreement, Madam Speaker . Child Abuse Review Committee Report - Chief Medical Examiner's recommendations MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Mi ni ster of Community Services with respect to the report which she tabled in the House yesterd ay, pointing out the major overhauls that are required with respect to the child abuse system in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker , my question is with respect to a specific recommendation contained on page 293 of the report, wherein the reviewers recommend "that in the � event of the death of a child in care," that the Chief , Medical Examiner be authorized to review the activities of child and welfare agencies and to report on whether the activities of the agencies were appropriate by the current standards.

Madam Speak er, my question to the Minis ter is: Will she implement this recom mendation, despite the apparent refusal of the Attorney-General to implement such a recommendation upon the request of the Chief Medical Examiner some four years ago? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , we are supportive of that reco mmendation. In the commentary yesterday made by the two indi viduals making the review, but specifically Dr.

Eric Sigurdson, he said that this was a practice right across the country that, in a sense, Chief Medical Examiners in their particular expertise, is not being used to the full. I think it's a positive recommendation and we are certainly supportive of it. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I'v e asked the Min ister - in view of the fact that children suffer subs tantial physical or mental disabil ities or injuries, which can affect them for the rest of their lifetime, would she go further th an the recommendation contained in the report, and authorize such a similar medical examination, where there's significant medical or physical disability incurred by a child, as a result of child abuse, in order to ensure that the efforts of the agencies in those cases have been appropriate? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker , as I understand the question, it is the opinion of the member opposite that the Chief Medical Examiner is the main font of expertise in the handling of child abuse and neglect of a general nature. It's not my understanding that that was the gist of the recommendation in the report. Again, I think the answers are going to come in a multidi sciplinary way between the people in health, justice, education and community services.

That's why 977 we have agreed to the senior level committee, the four deputies from those departments, working with senior staff, to explore how we can best inte grate the system across all departments and disciplines. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker , perhaps the Minister misunder stood my question. I asked her if she would go beyond the scope of this recommendation and require an inde pendent medical examination and analysis of the agencies respo nsibilities and activities, in the particular case where ther e is significant mental and physical disability or injury suffered by a child?

Madam Speaker, I hope she will answer that question. Child Abuse - Child Protection Centre MR. G. MERCIER: I would also ask her, Madam Speaker, particularly noting the comments of Ors.

Ferguson and McRae in a letter to the review team dated January 28, 19 87, which is contained in the Appendix in the report, wherein they point out and congratulate the review commit tee on their efforts, "seeking to advance conditions for the healthy survival of childr en and families in what has been for years, and is currently , a remarkably chaotic system." I ask her if she will support th e reco mmenda tions for additional resources to be supplied to the Child Protection Centre, and whether Manitobans can expect, over the next year, a full commitment to all of the recommendations of the review comm ittee, to ensure that the protection of children is a high priority with this government?

HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I think it was this government that initia ted the support for the Child Protection Centre. I think a careful reading of the report will see that there is a recommendation that medical personnel, throughout the city certainly , because that was the focus of the report, but I would certainly extend it to mean throughout Manitoba, develop expertise for the initial investigation and emergency response, and that the Child Protection Centre resources be used in training, and as a backup resource. I think th ose are two good recommendations, Madam Speaker.

With regard to who supervises whom, in terms of p rocedures, I think again that the answer is to get the mult id isc iplina ry teams and the four department commit tee to work out standards that identify which specialist is resp onsibile for what piece of the action, where we go for appeals by the individual, and how we get regular evaluation of the total system. I think it's that multid isciplinary approach that's going to give us the best results, Madam Speak er. Child Abuse Review Committee Report - progress reports re implementation of recommendations MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker , in view of the fact that this report was requested by the government as a result of an emergency debate in this Legislasture last June, at which time I believe it is fair to say that members on both sides of the House expressed serious

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 concerns over the existing system; in view of the fact that the Minister in her press release announces the formation of a Child Abuse Review Imple mentation Committee, compo sed of Deputy Min isters, to ensure recommendations in the report move ahead, in order to ensur e for members of this House the recommendations are not lost somewhere some months ahead, Madam Speaker , would the Min ister und ertake to distribute to all members of this House, on a quarterly basis, progress reports from the Child Abuse Review Committee, so that all members of the House can be assured that progress is being made.

If progress is not being made, we ther efore, will have a full opportunity to question why progress is not being made on the recommendation of her report. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Spea ker, I'd like to remind the Opposition that it was this government that started the raising of the profile and the attack on child abuse and has built up, gradually to be true, because there really were not experts in the field.

We have had not only to train the people in the field, we have had to train the trainers to train the people in the field because it is not an area of expertise that has been systema tically developed over time by doctors, teachers, social workers and so on. So I think, again compa red to what progress other provinces are making in this area, Manitoba is out ahead. The fact that we have not a fully developed system, I think, is understandable, Madam Speaker, because the di mension of the problem is so much greater than we had anticipated.

With regard to reporting, we do have our annual reporting procedure here and I'd like to take under advisement whether quarterly reports are the way to go. In terms of making avai lable periodic information to people, I'm certainly willing to do that but I think the question, as to the specific mechanics, I would like to take under advisement. Manitoba Developmental Centre - tabling of Ombudsman's Report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E.

CONNERY: Thank you, Madam Spe aker, it's coming out every day more and more that this Minis ter is unable to look after the people of Manitoba, that most of her departments are in chaos. Madam Speaker, even the Association of Communi ty Living asked why there was a large num ber of deaths at the MDC. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Does the honourable member have a question? MR. E. CONNERY: Ye s. MADAM SPEAKER: To whom does he wish to direct it? MR. E. CONNERY: To the Mini ster of Community Services. MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. MR. E.

CONNERY: In light of all these problems and the fact that they're concerned about the high number 978 of deaths at the MDC, the Manitoba Dev elopmental Centre, will this Min ister release the report of the Ombudsman to this House? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Wel l, Madam Speaker, I do find coming from the Opposition a group that have objected to our raising taxes, building social programs and trying to provide a more humane system of both economic and social programs in Manitoba.

Very surprising that they now, all of a sudden, expect us, or me and my department, to be able to look after fully all the people of Manitoba. However , taking that as a rhetorical comment, there are two questions, I think, here; one has to do with the reporting of deaths and the rate of deaths at the MDC. Again, the other question has to do with the Ombudsman's Report. Madam Speaker, if members opposite insist on asking four- and five-part questions, I belie ve I must be given the time to answer them one at a time.

With regard to the Ombudsman's Report, I have a comment from the Ombuds man that his understanding of the procedure we're following with the Ombudsman's Report is as I have stated. He sent me a confidential copy of the initial report and asked for our departmental comment. We have returned that to him. He said that a Minister has the authori ty, if they wish to release, but it would not be wise, it's much better to wait for the Department commenta ry to get int egrated in the final report. So that has to do with the Ombudsman's Report, Madam Speaker .

Last week I gave the pattern of deaths at MDC and the increasing age; the average age; the lif e expectancy of people there. There was an in crease in deaths in one year, but already a quarter into this year the rate is very much down, even over the average, so we don't know whether or not last year presented an unusual blip or not, but I do have avai lable the procedures. We ll, again, Madam Speaker, I was asked . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie with a supplementa ry. MR. E. CONNERY: We ll, Madam Speaker, to the First Min ister.

The indication is that this Government is doing such a good job for the mentally retarded, for the abused children, and so forth; when we were in office 3.53 percent of the budget was spent on community services; now we're seeing .59 percent of the budget spent on community services. Will the First Minister now order the Mini ster of Community Services to release the Ombudsman's Report so we can now protect the people at the MDC. HON. M.

SMITH: Wel l, Madam Speaker, I should point out a very elementary fact to the member opposite that in 1983 the social assistance portion of the Community Services' budget was moved over to my colleague, the Mini ster of Emp loyment Services and Economic Security so that his estimate of percentages is way off base. Madam Speaker , I'll be happy during the Estimates process to give some of the historical pattern of funding and also to answer those detailed questions.

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 Child and Family Services - increased funding to solve problems MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Community Services.

Madam Speaker, for years this Min ister has told the House that her department is providing a first-class child and family service focus for our citizens of this province and yet, Madam Speaker, the report that was tabled yesterday offers undeniable evidence that this department has not been filling its mandate and that there are no fewer than 76 recommendations to ind icate that the department is in serious trouble and our children are in jeopar dy.

I would like to ask the following question: Does the Min ister agree with the report that another $6 million will solve the problem, even when an additional $58 million ... � MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Could the honourable member rephrase it so as not to seek an opinion? Whether the Minister agrees or not is imma terial. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, will it be government policy that another $6 million spent on this department will solve the problem when $58 million in additional funds over the last four years hasn't? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, the claim I would make for the child and family service is that it is shifting into a commu nity-base preventive service. I have never claimed that it is all the way there, Madam Speaker, and I have been the person who is most aware of the fact that shifting a service that is crisis-oriented into a preventive-supportive one takes time and takes resources.

With regard to overall funding, I would draw attention to the House the fact that with the devolution of Indian Child Welfare to the reserves, there has been $4 million � to $6 million extra into the system from federal funding. ' There has also been a great in crease on day care services and mentally retarded children's services that do act as family supports and help strengthen the general thrust of the Child and Family Service.

With regard to the $6 million recommendation, $2 million of it has to do with del ivery of children's mental health services and can more properly be put to my colleague the Min ister of Health. With regard to the other $4 mill ion, our child maint enance budg et was given by supplementary warrant an incr ease of more than that last year and that is in the base for this year. As a matter of fact, that line in the budget does show a $6 million increase. There is not a recommendation at the moment to increase full complement recommended, the staff in the agencies, but it is under review.

Dept. of Community Services - deficiencies within MRS. S. CAR STAIRS: A supplementary to the same Minis ter. 979 Would the Mini ster explain to the House why, as the report has confirmed, there is a lack in her department of uni form standards; a lack of professional expertise and training; a lack of coordination of uniform ity and statistical and record keep ing; and a lack of resources, and a lack of preventive programs? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, when people read the report they seem to miss the historical context of the report.

What has been affirmed by the report is the wisdom of moving to a decentralized communi ty base service. What is also acknowledged is that we are one of the provinces that is taking the most init iative to get reporting and to deal with child abuse, and that has produced a tremendous increase in the volume of cases that the system is dealing with. With regard to standards, some of the agencies have not felt that it was appropriate for the Government of the Day to be as intima tely involved in their day-to day work and we had been moving more by legislation, guidelines and protocols and directives.

The fact that the report calls for us to become much more specific in the standards is welcomed by us. because we think it's the mechanism by which we can develop some uniformity and quality assurance and a better way of evaluating the agencies. As a matter of fact , the detailed standards are prepared, Madam Speaker, and should be introduced . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I explained to honourable members that I would like their cooperation both in having short answers and short questions.

I find it very difficult myself when questions have multi phases to them to try to make sure that Min isters contain their answers to a reasonable length. So if a question has four parts to it, it makes it very di fficult for all of us and takes up an unfair amount of time in question period. Minister of Community Services - request for resignation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CAR STAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, with a very short question.

Madam Speaker, surely a Min ister who receives such an unqual ified condemnation of her services should in fact resign; will the Minister resign? Asbestos - Norquay-Leg. Bldg. tunnel closed due to MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: On Friday, I ind icated to the Member for Turtle Mountain that I would bring back information in regard to a question he asked, or a num ber of questions he asked in regard to asbestos and the tunnel connecting the Legislature with the Law Courts Building, the Power House and the Norquay Building.

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 Madam Speaker , I wish to ind icate that indeed the engineers did find that a heating pipe, which is wrapped in asbestos and cloth had been torn and from there the department took samples. These samples ind icated that there were fibr es and, on that basis, the tunnel was closed until the repairs could do done, which did occur; it was repaired using proper measures. But I do want to ind icate, contrary to some of the comments, Madam Speaker , that the member made to the media over the week end, that it is the employer's responsibility . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

May I remind the Honourable Min ister that answers should be brief. HON. G. LECUYER: Ye s, Madam Speaker , and I did indic ate that there were two questions asked, and I want to indi cate the true facts in this measure, in regard to this particular question. The fact is, Madam Speaker , that this happened over a month ago and the tunnel was reopened two days later . I do wish that after a month-and-a-half of the Session, at least a proper question would be asked in regard to occupational health. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Brandon West. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Spea ker, my question is di rected to the Minis ter of Health. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Brandon West has the floor. Order! Brandon General Hospital - closure of beds MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , my question is di rected to the Min ister of Health. Last year, Madam Speaker , the Min ister approved taking out of service, at Brandon General Hospital, 31 beds. This year the proposal is that 49 beds be cut for the summer months.

Has the Min ister of Employment Services and Economi c Securi ty, the Membe r for Brandon East, approached the Min ister of Health and made represen tations to him about the pro posed cuts for this year? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable memb er, would he like to reph rase his question please so it's within the Min ister's jurisdiction. He should not be asking one Mini ster about the behaviour of another Min ister. The Honourable Member for Brandon West . MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Sp eaker, I just wonder if anyone has stood up for Western Manitoba and spoken to the Minister of Health and made representations about the proposed closure of 49 beds at the Brandon General Hospital this summ er, including the Honourable Member for Brandon East. MADAM SPEAKER: The Mini ster of Health. 980 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, had you ruled the first question in order I would have answered that, absolut ely . The Me mb er for Brandon is always approaching me whenever there is anything at Brandon.

I told him what I told the House, that an y deinstitutional ization will be done in an orderly fashion; that there is a committee dealing with staff that will work with the government before anything is accepted or rejected from the hospital; and that we are getting cooperation from the hospital to change the system in order to keep on providing the best system in the free world. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, a new question.

In view of the fact that people in West ern Manitoba will have to head to Winnip eg for hospital care where it will be proposed that there will also be cuts, will the Minis ter be approving these cutbacks at Brandon in view of the fact that people won't have anywhere to go for hospital care. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, if the people from Brandon come to Winnipeg, then they'll have even mor e beds com pared to the people of Winnip eg because they have more beds at their di sposal now than the people of Winnipeg.

As far as the approval given, when and if it is given, of course, the members of the House and the public will be informed. Hospitals - closure of beds to control deficit MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , is the cutting of hospital bed capacity the response of this government to increasing health care costs in view of the fact that deficits are allo wed at MPIC, deficits are allo wed at Workers Compensation, deficits are allo wed at the Te lephone System, deficits are allowed all over the place with this government, except in the area of health care?

Is this the response of this government, to cut one fifth of the bed capacity at Brandon General Hospital? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mada m Speaker , my . honourable friend and his colleagues have been asking all these Min isters to resign, and I'm so afraid that he's going to ask me to resign that we have to be careful with the deficit in my department. Insurance coverage - MLA's and provincial employees MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Last week, I had taken a question as notice from the Memb er for Riel regarding liability ins urance coverage and I would, first of all, like to apologize to the mem ber. At the time of responding to his question I'd ind icated that the information was contained in a memo that I had circulated to him, but regrettably that had not reached him at that time. So I apologize for any suggestion that he had access to that information prior to asking the question.

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 In regard to the question, I think the information that he has been provided with would ind icate to him that that particular provision for the $10,000 deductible is only related to MLA's and not to the general work force of the govern ment. Hospitals - closure of beds to control deficit MR. D. ORCHARD: I was used to a much longer answer. I'm so flattered to be on so early, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker , my question is to the Min ister of Health. The Min ister of Health is about to make a decision as to whether 49 beds in Brandon will be cut this summer.

Madam Speak er, my question to the Min ister is: In view of the deficits facing all of the hospitals in Winnipeg, has the Min ister been informed, or has the Min ister been asked to approve substantial bed cuts in any of the Winn ipeg city hospitals? .. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of , Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker , all the urban hospitals have been meeting with the staff of the Commission, and they have been told that we could not keep on with this high deficit in hospitals.

It's been suggested that could be curtailed in an orderly fashion, in a period of two years or so, and they were asked to prepare a brief and a study and recommendation to deal with their own deficit, and they will be coming back to the Commission, and I would imagine that they'll have all kinds of suggestions. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , I'll pursue that issue with the Mi nister over the next couple of weeks. Pay Equity - Dept. of Health MR. D. ORCHARD: But my question now, Madam Speaker , is to the Minister of Labour .

Madam Speaker , the Minister of Labour is in ch arge of the imple mentation of pay equity . That program was to have been implemented in the Department of Health for this fiscal year Estimates currently before us. Can the Min ister of Labour indi cate, in the Department of Health, the financial impact and the extra budg etary requirements for the implementation of pay equity as proposed by the NDP? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: The question that the member raised is more in my area of res ponsibility as Mi nister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, in terms of the implementation of pay equity as it relates to the Civil Ser vice. The time fram e with respect to implementation is that we're in the phase now of the actual negotiations with the emp loyee groups, in terms of how it will be implemented for the Civil Service of the Province of Manitoba.

So at this point there are no details available on the financial implications as it relates to the Department of Health, or to other departments, until such time as those negotiations are concluded. 981 Pay Equity - increase to deficit MR. D. ORCHARD: A final supplementary then to the Minis ter of Health.

Giv en tha t last year in the Esti ma tes of the Department of Health, the Mini ster of Health ind icated tha t this year's Estima tes would reflect the implementation of pay equity, is the Mini ster of Fina nce now ind icating that this may happen mid-year, and any funding requirement would then be made by Special Warrant and would further add to the deficit of the province? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I can't confirm the

preamble to the question because I'm not aware of that of which he speaks. I can tell him that just the same as the government may, or may not, be faced with additional costs as it relates to general salary increases, once the conclusion of the current colle ctive agreement comes later this year, that in the same fashion, in the same way has been done in previous years, that there may be additional funds needed if there are settlements reached which require payments over and above that which is presently provided for in the Estimates.

If that is the case, then that would be provided for at the appropriate time, and also would be dealt with in terms of the overall financial situation of the province, recognizing that there are areas that are underexpended during the year. Department of Health - salary estimates MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I apologize for asking one more supplementary question to the Min ister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is indicating that only one half of this year's salary may well be reflected in the Estimates of the Department of Health.

Last week, when we di scussed salary inc reases, the Min ister of Health explained to the committee that between the general salary incr ease effective this year, and the increments, the average salary increase in the Department of Health is 8 percent. Is the Mi ni ster saying tha t with implementation of pay equity and the new contract, that it may well be beyond that? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I'm having quite a bit of confusion trying to understand what the member is saying.

You suggested that only half the salary costs of the salaries for the Department of Health are contained in the Estimates; that is simply not true. All of the salary costs, as they are known at the present time, are contained in the Estimates for that depart ment, as they are for other departments. So I don't know on what he's basing his comments. If he's talking about some potential inc reases that may take effect for half a year, the answer is we do not have that information because there is no settlement reached on whether or not ther e'll be any salary incr ease at that time.

Until that's done, I cannot provide a specific response to his question. Manfor Ltd. illegal strike MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Arthur .

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I have a question to either the Min ister responsi ble for Manfor, or Labour, and ask if the Minister has investigated the report on the illegal stike at Manfor and, if so, does the Min ister support it? MADAM SPEAKER: The last part of that question is out of order. It seeks an opinion. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Ye s, Madam Speaker. A question to the Minister responsible for Manfor . Has he investigated the reported illegal strike at Manfor? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mini ster responsible for Ma nfor . HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speaker, yes, I have been in touch with the staff at Manfor about the current situation, and clearly the member's

preamble is quite clear . It is an illegal strike, and I und erstand that meetings are going on right now to resolve the problem and I expect a resolution forthwith. Manfor Ltd.- gov't action re illegal strike MR. J. DOWNEY: In view of the fact that the Minis ter said there is an illegal strike, will he or the Min ister of Labour be carrying out their responsi bilities as Min ister of the Crown in enforcing the laws of the province? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nister of Labour . HON. A. MA CKLING: Madam Speaker, as my colleague has indicated, this is an illegal strike.

The Province of Manitoba, through the Crown agency, is the employer and we have ind icated our concern. The Department of Labour , although not di rectly involved, is always available should there be a need for conciliation or mediation services I would like, Madam Speaker, while I have the opportuni ty, to answer a question from the Leader of the Opposition the other day, in respect to the status of workers at Canada Packers, and to advise him that 27 of the bargaining unit empl oyees have left the company for other jobs, transfer or retraining; eight salaried staff have left the company and found other jobs.

Through th e es tablishm ent of the Workers Adjustment Committee, there have been 90 personal visits to prospective employees and a telephone blitz conducted, resulting in 20 referrals to four posted jobs. Arrangements have been made for ma ss unemployment in surance registration at the plant on April 9 and 10 and there were eight CEIC counsellors in attendance. Arrangements have been made for exit inter views April 9 and 10, where seven provincial councillors will be in attendance. The total layoff will involve 350 to 360 employees.

There are 264 bargaining unit employees registered with the Workers Adjustment Centre; 24 office and salaried staff registered with the Workers Adjustment Centre; 8 empl oyees have found jobs through the Workers Adjustment Centre. 982 Highway 250 -funding for road program MR. J. DOWNEY: I have a new question for the Min ister of Hi ghways and Trans portation.

In view of the fact that the Minis ter of Hi ghways and Transporta tion has a meeting sch eduled for this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. with a delegation from Highw ay 250, can the Minis ter confirm whether or not if he has any money at all for them for their road program for this year or has it all been spent on the bridge next to the Premier's constituency in Selkirk, a bridge that doesn't have a road to it, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urabl e Min ister of Hi ghways. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, that question is barely worth answering and it is a grandstanding question by the Member for Arthur because he sees some of the members of the "250 Association" sitting up here. The fact is we want to welcome them to th e Legislature, Madam Speaker. The fact is that we are meeting this afternoon and the program is being final ized and the question that the Member for Arthur has put forward here today has little or no bearing on the results. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Go vernment House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Agriculture, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk and grieve for some 4,000 Manitobans, some 4,000 Manitobans, Madam Speaker, who are to some degree mentally retarded. Madam Speaker, it's no ones fault when somebody is born retarded; it's one of those tragic fates of life.

It doesn't pick any group of people or any economic group of people, it just happens and it's a very tragic time for families when they do have a retarded child. Madam Speaker, most residents of institutions are wards of the state and, as wards of the state, they are the respo nsibility of the state and the responsibility of the govern ment. They don't have the rights that other people have and, because there are no votes, most people ignore them, and this government has done the very same thing. This government must now act on behalf of the retarded in Manitoba. Madam Speaker, I want to

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 address it on two issues, one on the basis of the Manitoba Developmental Centre and, at the same time, recognizing there is one at Pelican Lake and St. Amant, and also the Wel come Home Program where there are many of the retarded people at risk. Madam Speaker, there's a short history. The Manitoba Developmental Centre has been around here for close to 10 0 years. I'm speaking also for the staff that are in the Manitoba Developmental Centre. There is some 600 or more staff there, working under conditions that are deplorable and not condusive to good working relations.

It's a staff that, Madam Speaker, I think people should take their hat off to because working for the mentally retarded and with the mentally retarded is a very trying experience. I think the last while we've seen, with some of the allegations that have been around, allegations that I think are not the fault of the staff, I think the staff is an excellent staff and I thoroughly stand behind them. Madam Speak er, we saw this Min ister of Community Services close the Psychiatric School of Nursing at Portage la Prairie. Madam Speaker , this was a unique teaching program.

It taught hands-on experience for the mentally retarded and, what do we get? She closes it. Why did they close it, Madam Speaker? I think it was for political reasons. This Minis ter knows that there are no major votes for her or her party in Portage la Prairie and she closed it in favour of Selkirk and Brandon, ridings that are now held by the NDP. It was a crass, terrible political decision and this is supposed to be from a Min ister who is thought to be kind and caring. Madam Speak er, we see that this Minis ter is not a kind and caring person.

We had in 1977 a real tragedy where there were eight residents of the Manitoba Developmental Centre died in a very tragic fire. Madam Speaker , they died because the then NDP Government hadn't responded to a report that said the fire system should be upgraded. Eight people of that facility perished in fire, Mr. Chairman. That is a terrible thing to have happen to anybody , but I can say th at in 19 77, when we then formed government, the Member for Lakeside was in charge and he spent $4 17 ,OOO upgrading the fire equipment at the Manitoba Developmental Centre. (Mr. Deputy Speaker , C. Santos, in the Chair.) Mr.

Deputy Speaker , if you look back through the records, you find it has been our government who has done the most for the mentally retarded. We had a larger budget and when you look through the figures in the book released, you see that there is a lower percentage spent on the Ma nitoba Developmental Centre now than there was some five or six years ago. But the fire problems didn't die in 1977.

We have also reports, and I have a memo that says: "Since there is no fire alarm panel in the Nur ses' Residence, it is requested that the power house engineer phone the operator imme di ately on the sounding of the fire alarm." At the present time, the operators have no way of knowing when and where a fire alarm occurs. That is an ind ication that there was a serious problem there, and this was in June of 1986, under the direction of this supposedly kind and caring Min ister. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I have another memo and it says: "It is my unde rstan ding that the contract for the 983 fire safety upgrading of Nor thgrove Building has been postpon ed." During a fire drill in this building November 18, difficulty was experienced with the locks on the door s leading from ward to ward by myself and personnel from Government Services. The doors thems elves are badly in need of repair and should be replaced to standards of the Fire and Building Codes and be equ ipped with magnetic locks and pani c hardware conne cted to the fire alarm system. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it's obvious that this Minis ter was not concerned and did not take action on these memos. This memo, Mr. Deputy Speak er, was Novem ber, 1985. This Minis ter has left those people at risk for all that period of time. We have another memo, and it seems evident to the writer that the projected use of North grove will in fact be exceeded: "E ven if the projections given are accurate, we need upgrading of locks and egress routes," and that was for the Fire Chief in Portage la Prairie. This Minister left a lot of residents of Northgrove at risk for an extended period of time.

We have another one here: "Due to the fact that Nor thgrove Building is not to be renovated to minimum fire and building standards, I would bring the following concern to your atten tion," and he goes on to describe how 56 doors have locks from both sides and, in the case of a fire, they would not have easy exit from the building. This, once again, from a Mi nister who tries to proclaim that she is kind and caring for the people of Manitoba. What was the result? I was given these memos by someone in the mail.

I don't know who sent them to me, but the results of me getting these memos is that the procedure now at the Manitoba Developmental Centre is not to issue memos. The Minister is so worried that the facts of what is going on at that facility will get out, that she has now told her people, do not write memos, just verbal contact, and that's what we have. We 're not able to then go back and show, by memos, what has been wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I'm sure some memb ers of the staff will probably be documenting what is going on. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to read one excerpt from Hansard, and it's on page 11 80 from last year's Hansard. The Mini ster is replying to my question about the fire alarm system that is at the MDC in one of the basements. She says, and I quote: "Madam Speaker, it's been alle ged that there's some plastic pipe that has been purchased, but the total upgrading is more complex than that." That was the reply of the Min ister, but here is what we found.

It now shows that there are 373 electrical smoke detectors, 13 heat detectors, 17 smoke indi cator lights, part of an electrical smoke test, 46 bells, 14 hand sheets for voice communication, 44 speakers, 13 panels, 2 master panels and 2 fire alarm controls. Mr. Deputy Speaker , you can see why I could not lower my principles and withdraw the remark that I was named for in this House. This Mini ster has not delivered all of the facts to the House and I think that's a tragedy and she should be severely reprimanded for that. Mr. Deputy Speaker , there is another piece on page 15 40 and it's from the Fire Chief, Mr.

Thorimbert, the Commission er, and it says, "Now in one of the articles Mr. Thorimbert said his decision to allow the centre to shirk the work which is the fire safety order and save

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 ab out $2 millio n might ha ve been altered if Mr. Thorim bert had known about the memo." So this Mi nister even kept the Fire Comm issioner in the dark on the conditions at the Manitoba Developmental Centre. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not the actions of a person who is caring and who has the respon sibility to look out for the mentally retarded who cannot look out for themselves. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I've had lots of communication from different people and I have a letter here. It's from some of the staff at the Manitoba Developmental Centre.

I'll just read a few of the excerpts out of that letter so you'll know what they feel about it. It says, "For those of us who are left behind, I realize that the closing of the School of Nursing is on schedule. I can only hope that, at some future date, the government sees the error and in fact re-e stablishes the program ." Another part, "Morale at the MDC is very, very low. The psychiatric nur ses and nursing assistants are genuinely concerned for the residents in our care.

The main floor of Sout hgrove is being renovated into wards which would seem to me to be putting more people into an already overcrowded building." The letter goes on to say, "W orking in the buildin g when the temperature remains 37 degrees Celsius for two days and two nights, it seems to me that we don't really need a lot more body heat on the main floor to keep the temperature from dropping." Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be somewhat surprising, but they had a better air system in the dairy barns than they do have for the residents at the Manitoba Developmental Centre.

They had better fans for moving air for the dairy herd. At the bottom end, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it says, "Whoever is instructing all these changes, is obviously trying to make the Manitoba Developmental Centre a hell hole and to look like one. It's absolutely inhuman." This is from staff, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that work at the Manitoba Developmental Centre day in and day out and know that there are severe problems there. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the breakup of the MDC is similar to the breakup of the Children's Aid Society into regional child and family services.

The regional services was supposed to do a better job of providing service to the clients at the communi ty level. What has happened is instead a lack of expertise and programs to deal with the problems at the community level and likely a horrendous increase in cost. The same lack of planning for support services for the Welcome Home Program people for staff and for the clients is evident. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Min ister has a history that is absolutely shocking. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to address the overcrowd ing tha t is present at the Ma nitoba Developmental Centre, and I know that the report that the Min ister has from the Ombudsman states that there is overcrowd ing. But I want to read a memo, a memo that I can't get anymore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Mi nister has ord ered no mo re memos. "In accordance with the Ma nitoba Building Code, an institution such as ours is classed as Group B, Division 2." It goes on to explain what the question is.

"I t's 50 square feet per person where there's two or more beds." He says, "As several moves have already taken place and more to come in the future, it is my opinion 984 that this criteria is not being maintained. It is also requested that the ratio of one staff for every 15 members be maintained as outlined in the fire code." This is coming from an employee of the Manitoba Developmental Centre saying that there is overcrowd ing and the Min ister has contin uously told us in Estima tes that there isn't overcrowd ing. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this Mini ster said, and it's in Hansard, that we are away over 60 square feet per bed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, those are not the facts that are there. This Minister was with me when we made a tour and I counted some of the tile. There were some areas where they were barely 50 square feet, barely 50 square feet if they were and 50 square feet is the minimum allowed by the fire regulation, and this Mini ster says we're away in excess of 60 square feet. Can you now unde rstand why I wouldn't withd raw the remarks that I made, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think it was an error on the part of this government to close down Northgrove, and the staff recognized that error , because now we have a tremendous overcrowding problem in that institution. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a press clipping and it says, "A mana gement official at the centre who spoke on conditions his name wasn't used ," so obviously they are very concerned about this Minister knowing what they're saying or if they're saying the facts, "said overcrowding is harming to patients and creating a morale problem among the staff.

In one case, 22 very aggressive male residents were moved from a 5,000 square foot living space in Northgr ove to about 2,400 square feet in Southgrov e." This Mini ster keeps on telling us that conditions are improving. "These patients kick, punch, push, tear clothes, throw dishes, make sexual advances, thr ow temper tantrums and, as well, extra body heat and the smaller living areas has raised the temperature to about 37 degrees causing bedlam," the management source said. "The overcro wding interferes drastically with cryer types.

There is just no quiet time." This is what she is expecting the residents of the MDC to live in. This is a Min ister who tries to portray herself as a kind, caring woman. I would allow you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make your own decisions on these facts as to how kind and caring she is. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have memos showing the bed setups, the bed rated capacity in various residents. I have one that goes back to May of 1986; I have one of February 19 87. It shows where they have incr eased the bed-rated capacity, incr eased it significantly in one from 11 7 to 167. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , that's a lot of people in the same area. But what did they do? Are there 16 7 people in there, at the capacity rating? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are 19 5 people in that area, 28 above the capacity rating for that ward. We can look at We stgrove, another one. It was rated at 16 8, now incr eased to 208. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are 228 people in that ward, 20 people over the capacity. This is from a kind and caring Minis ter. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the people will make their choice, decide if she really is that kind and caring. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to also address the issue of und erstaffing. Back in 19 77, the then director of the Manitoba Developmental Centre, Dr. Lowther, says the school is und erstaffed and needs 200 more staff. That's back in 19 77. The Ombudsman's report will state that the department is unde rstaffe d.

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 Mr. Deputy Speaker , we've seen, I think, somewhere in the area of 30 or 40 people laid off and another 30 or 40 about to be laid off in a very short time. This Min ister is saying she's looking after the people of Manitoba, looking after the mentally retarded who are the wards of the state and unde r her personal supervision and re sponsibili ty. Mr. Deputy Speaker , if this Minister had a conscience, she would now release that report and let the people of Manitoba decide for themselv es what the problems are at the Manitoba Dev elopmental Centre. We have seen, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , many reports on the overdrugging that is supposedly going on with the mentally retarded . I do have some concern whether there is in fact overd rugging, but I think the report would point out if there was. But I think it also shows that maybe because of the overcrowd ing, because there is no air conditioning in a large sector of the the complex, that maybe drugs are the better alternative for these people, because in very cramped and very crowded qua rters and in temperatures of that, I can see that some of the more violent people would be a problem if they didn't use drugs.

So we would like to know what that report says. Maybe we need to increase the space in the Manitoba Developmental Centre. Maybe we need to remodel Nort hgrove and put some 120 back into that facili ty, but I think this Mini ster will stubbornly go ahead and leave it closed and probably bulldoze it down so it'll be out of her system. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we need this issue put to rest now, not at some time in the future. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I mentioned the temperatures in there and the 37 degrees that it gets to. Now who would want to work in that? We had worked under some pretty trying conditions here last year.

We wer en't very happy about it and we were sure looking to get this air conditioner going here. But I think that it is now time that the Min ister have a plan for the MDC. I asked her, on our tour, if there was any long-range plan for the Manitoba Dev elopmental Centre, and she said no. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we've been doing a fair bit of research and I find some very interesting material. The Min ister got a report, and it was May of 1982, and it was, "We Have Promises to Keep." Actually it went to the Premier . I just want to read a sentence in here, Mr.

Deputy Speake r, which shows you the goal, the long-range plan that the government has for the Ma nitoba Developmental Centre, and indeed, all institutions in Mani toba: "In in itiating the process of deinstitutionalization and beginning the phasing out of institutions ... " - that is the goal of this Mini ster and of this government to close up institutions. There's also some recommendations that I think should be put on the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker: "Tha t governments cease all admis sions to the Manitoba School, Pelican Lake Training Centre and St.

Amant, and create an adequate community response to the needs of those referred for adm ission to be accomplished by April 19 85." Now she hasn't accomplished that yet, but that's part of the plan. ''That governments stop the transfer of childr en from the St. Amant Centr e to the Ma nitoba School; that the Manitoba School and Pelican Lake Training Centre be 985 pha sed out by the year 2000 ." No w we have it pinpointed that it's the year 2000. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we think that this is shameful that this Mini ster does not know what she's doing.

This Min ister is listening to one group of people who are against institutions, but there are also other people who are saying there is room for institutions. Mr. Deputy Speaker , it was nice seeing you. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) Madam Speaker , I think this Minister needs to listen to all the people involved in mental retardation and I think she would have a better understanding because there are two sides to it. We need the institution; we also need the Welcome Home Program.

Neither one is functioning effect ively and neither are either one of them at the best interests of the residents of these facilities. Dr. Glen Lowther, chief medical consultant for the Department of Community Services and government programs for the mentally handicapped, has been taken over by people who belie ve institutionalization is destructive. "The ideology being thrust down our throats," he said, "is entirely reasonable that you be very concerned about this." Then it goes on to talk about people whose son is in the centre. She wants him to stay there.

They say "out." Two other parents said they were not asked, but merely informed that their chi ldr en wou ld be released into the commun ity. Madam Speaker , that's unb elievable that this Min ister would stand up in this House and say people were not being badgered and bullied into having their childr en go into the communit y. She has that on record, Madam Speaker , but the facts ind icate that the reversal is true, that she knows this is going on. She knows very well.

We have also another article, and it says, "The relatives in terviewed named Nor ena Robson, an emplo yee of the Association for Community Living, as one who has made thr eats by reminding parents of the overrid ing power of the Public Trustee ." Mada m Speaker , what does that tell you? Does that tell you there is a dialogue where people can make the decision on their own to certainly determine what is in the best interests of their child or their relative that's in the home?

No, this Minis ter is making that decision for them, and this Mini ster is not cognizant of all of the facts of the mental retardation program and what is requi red and what is wanted by the people of Manitoba. Part of this other letter, Madam Speaker, that I read earli er, it says, "Nor ena Robson said that the level of care will not be maintained at the MDC." Madam Speaker , Norena Robson doesn't even work for the govern ment; she works for the ACL. What is her role in dictating government policy? Is this Min ister not running her own department?

If she isn't, then I think she needs to take a look - well, we know what needs to be done - she needs to resign and look for somebody who might do something better. Surely, anybody can do a better job than what is being done now. Madam Speaker , there is one good thing that is happening though at the Manitoba Dev elopmental Centre, which is the $2.7 million Activities Building. But it makes it a little bit confusing for me; I have a hard time rationalizing what is happening. They are looking

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 at closing the institution by the year 2000, but we're now building an Activities Building for this period of time. so it is rather confusing. I don't know if the Minis ter has any sense of dir ection that she is going. If she did, she would be telling us, and then maybe by telling us, she might have to make a decision as to know where she's going. Madam Speaker, I'v e got a letter from the AGL, the Association for Community Living, and I think these are a group of people that are very caring and very concerned.

The only issue that I would take with the members of the Association for Community Living is the fact that they want to close institutions. I think they have the right to work, to put their relatives and childr en into the communi ty - I don't di scourage that; in fact, I would encourage it if it's in their best inter est - but also shouldn't try to close institutions so that other people who feel it is better for their children to be in the institution to make that decision.

But it says here, "Day programs in sufficient quantity and quality are lacking and cannot be produced with the financial support currently prov ide d by the depart ment." They're saying in the communi ty there's not enough programs, and we've been saying this, too, to the Min ister, and she keeps on saying no, this isn't true, that's not the facts; but, Madam Speaker, they are the facts.

It says, "We need change in how we achieve individual planning for people and real implementation of needed services for the individuals based on plans." They also say, "Lack of stable, long-term training capability to train staff and boards for the needed services ." So what they're saying is that in the Welcome Home Program, we don't have the capable trained staff that we're supposed to have, that this Min ister says we have, when in fact we don't have it. Madam Speaker, we have another report.

It's a status letter from the Association for Community Living, and they've gone through and what they've done is they've analyzed the Wel come Home Program and they have listed some good parts where the Min ister has done a fairly adequate job, but then they list a whole host of areas where this Min ister has failed the mentally retarded in the communi ty.

They talk about several local commun ity-sponsoring groups having received inaccurate information about the true needs of a person at the MDC, resu lting in inappropriate resource being planned and, in some cases, a return to the institution; a lack of commitment to 24-hour planning; community problems in obtaining up-to-date information on housing proceedings with MHR C; negative media exposure; again lack of trained staff. They di scuss the start-up costs and the lack of sufficient funding in the start-up costs of these homes.

They go through the day program again, and it says, "the weakest link in planning." Day programs are the weakest link. Problems include lack of funding to promote int egrated day options; lack of capital funds to solve problems, once again, of fire and safety, Madam Speaker, at St.

Malo, Boissevain, Virden - are the ones that they've got in here; lack of program di rection as to the desirable outcomes; lack of funds and leadership in the employment support area; lack of options for multiply-hand icapped persons; lack of places to go for day programs for people coming out of the institution. 986 It says at least five residential operators are providing a da y program as wel l, and a dela y in the implementation of Level 4 and 5 funding to OAC's. They need admi nistrative support. More attention is requir ed to plan for people at risk in the commun ity.

They're addressing those people that this Min ister refuses to, and they say, "We cannot forget about planning for people who are not at risk and may be at home with legitimate needs." Madam Speaker, I have also had calls on people in this way and they say it's not fair. If we try to keep them home, they won't help us at all. So if we send them to an institution, they' ll pay the whole cost, but then they insist that they be under the Public Trustee and people cannot have control over their children.

We 'll say it again and we'll say it many times, because maybe if we say it often enough it'll get through the thick skulls over there, and start them to pay attention to the needs of the retarded in Manitoba. Madam Speaker, there is a regional implementation team sub-committee, and they go through a whole host of problems that we have in the We lcome Home Program. It says, "The regional implementation team of Central Ma nitoba ha s compiled the following questions.

We are hoping that the answers will assist us to adequately provide for the needs of the childr en in our area." Madam Speaker, they are saying that the needs are not being add ressed at this point. They are looking for answers. They are looking for support from this Min ister, and this Min ister is not giving them support, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, there was another report from the proposed regional planning on the regional planning process.

It says, "The planning and the implementation of the decant of 220 persons from the Manitoba school is a complex project that requir es careful coordination of information, decision-making and resources between provincial, regional and field levels. It is also necessary to rebuild confidence between the government and volun teer sector if this initia tive is to succeed. To accomplish this, both new and whatever structures are requir ed ." Madam Speaker, they are very concerned that the needs of the people in the We lcome Home Program are met and at this point they are not.

Madam Speaker, we also have another group of people who are very concerned about the mentally retard ed; it's th e auxil iary for the Ma nitoba Developmental Centre. They have done a lot of work for the mentally retarded in raising money for different things for them, for summer camps and also just buying things in the institution itself that this government has failed to do. They don't agree with the route that this Min ister is taking.

Madam Speaker, they're not opposed to the Welcome Home Program, but they are opposed to the suppor t that is given to the Ma nitoba Developmental Centre and other centres that house the mentally retarded . They say, "The welfare of citizens with mental handic aps can only be approached on an individual basis, what it is that is best for each individual for the hand icap.

It cannot be settled by the single application of one ideol ogy, however shrillingly expressed ." They go on, Madam Speaker, and they say, "There is a need for all parts of the spectrum of opinions to be listened to with sympathy and due consid eration before decisions are made." They are saying there are other

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 ways. "At present, the auxiliary feels that the views of the party are dictated by a very small lobby indeed and its policies are largely being imp lemented by civil servants who have no professional involvement in the field whatsoever ." These are concerned parents, Madam Spea ker, of mentally retarded children, very concerned people who are working to improve the lot of the mentally retarded.

Madam Speaker , I have another letter that is very interesting and it says, "Seven objectives for 1992 have been ident ified by the ACL Task Force as feasible steps towards the vision we share - vision.

Their attainment would not complete our vision for the year 2000, but they have been id entified as feasi ble, practical, attainable steps towards that vision." I plead with them, Madam Speak er, that they would not go the route of trying to close the institution in the light that there are a tremendous number of people out there who don't want their childr en in the commu nity, do not feel it's in their best interest.

Friends of mine, who have mentally retarded children, have spoken to me, I have had phone calls, I've had letters, Madam Speaker , people wondering where this Min ister is going and why is she on such a narrow fine line of one implementation only to close institutions. It says, "The use of tax dollars to meet people's needs will be decided between the person who needs help and the Provincial Govern ment." Where are the parents in these decision-making processes?

This Minister is saying that the government and, if it's a mentally retarded, a severe and profoundly retarded person, they maybe can't even speak, Madam Speaker , so the government is going to make the decision; this big, big government who is so concerned about people will make decisions. It says, "By 19 87, admissions to institutions will stop and evacuation will proceed at 10 percent per year based on 1986 populations." We ll, it shows you, Madam Speaker, that this is not happening. The Min ister has told us that we would see 220 people move into the communi ty.

Madam Speaker , in the middle of March, from last May to the middle of March, there are 90 less people at the Manitoba Developmental Centre; 16 of those were by deaths. So, obviously , the Mini ster's program is not working. It's amazing the little bits of stuff, Madam Speaker , that we do come across. One of her own people, Mr. Mendelson, and this is the executiv e management co mmit tee report to middle mana gem ent, "Mr .

Mendelson had also some bad news in that long-range forecast for the province clearly indi cates that without some major changes in dir ection and/or continued restraint programs the problem will face serious financial difficulties." So her own department recognizes that this government is going in the wrong way and obviously he's not sure that they're going to make any changes, so he's warning the staff at the Manitoba Developmental Centre that there is going to be a little less money in the future for them.

Also, for another report on the ARC ind ustries and this sort of thing, they are complaining that funding levels for sh elte red workshops in Manitoba are except ionally low, well below the national average. It goes on and it says, ". . . which showed Manitoba 987 well below the seven other Canadian provinc es and two American states." It showed us behind seven others, well below the seven other Canadian provinces, Madam Speaker . So when we'r e putting these people into the commun ity, we are not following up with the program that is required.

I think that it's a shame and a disgrace that this Minister will carry on. Madam Speaker, one of the letters that was deliv ered came to me this week after the unfortunate incident of last week, and it says - these are the last two sentences - "Obviously something needs to be done. I ho pe tha t you can shak e up the bird brains on Broadway .'' Thank you, Madam Speak er. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I rise to use my grievance in response.

Madam Speak er, the one thing I feel good about in listening to the hono ur able mem ber opp osite's presentation is the concern for the 4,000 mentally retarded citizens of Manitoba is of high prior ity, and it is to high priority on both sides. I think, Madam Speaker , though, that when we are discussing the well-being of the mentally retarded citizens and when we look at the varieties of opinion and the varieties of lobby groups out there, and when we look at the varieties of ways of delivering the program, that we engage in some basic hon esty.

We engage in some basic honesty in terms of where the system has come from. Madam Speak er, we've heard a great deal about MDC and it's good that it received public scruti ny, but I draw the attention of all members to the fact that that very structure did have 1, 100 persons. It will shortly be under 600. The goal of 220 reduction will be achieved by July of this year. Madam Speak er, when the Welcome Home Project was developed, it was developed at a time when there was a great range of heated opinion, difference of opinion as to how the retarded could best be cared for.

It's true that families with mentally retarded childr en did not have access to supports. Their choice was to struggle along as best as they could, find a voluntary group that might support them or institutionalize their children. In many cases, this meant giving up legal responsibility to the Public Trustee. Since that time, Madam Speaker , we have started to build a coherent support program right from birth through to old age for children, for adults living in the communi ty, either with their family or near their family.

Of course, we haven't got all of the support programs at the ideal stage, but we have the basic structure and the basic type of program developing year by year. There is infant stimulation for the young child, when the family first finds that they have a child with mental retardation di fficu lty. We have peer support groups so that the parents can talk to one another , draw support and help chart the future of their child and their family. We have vastly improved the training and the special sup ports in in tegrated da y care and have also supported, Madam Speak er, specialized day care for

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 childr en, not only with mental retardation, but with physical disabilities. So that if a family does choose to keep their youngster at home, they do get some relief during the day and the child gets the benefit of a supportive environment, as inte grated as they can manage, Madam Speaker, not shut off in a family room or completely dependent on parents' care, no matter how devoted. Parents do fatigue and don't always have the basic skills, so that we are moving in with community supports to assist parents. The development of the overall program goes on through the education system.

Of course, all the wrinkles haven't been worked out; of course, school divisions are struggling to find how best they can build in the supports. The residential programs are increasingly becoming available, not only to young adults, but where really necessary, to children.

We have in the Dauphin area, instead of taking thr ee child ren away from their families and sending them off to Winn ipeg where the only institution that cares for young childr en is available, enabled tho se three families to have a community home in their neighbourhood, Madam Speaker, where the staff can come and go and where the family provides support to those children, but where the children, in a sense, remain the co-owners of the house. And that way, the families are able to keep the child ren involved in family and communi ty life to the extent the child can cope.

Madam Speaker, that is what we have said all along. In Altona, we have another type of development where aging mentally retarded individuals - again, I'm giving you the example of the type of commun ity option that is developing. In this case, Level 5 people, who are normally not considered able to live in the commu nity, that community spirit and desire to keep their own residents close at home, even though their parents were aging and could no longer care for them.

Their desire to keep them in the community was so strong that they constructed a beautiful facil ity, it was actually beyond our means as funders, Madam Speaker, that they unde rtook as a community to provide that extra amount, and there Level 5 senior citizens are living out their lives in dignity and close to family and friends. There's a great variety of options developing.

They were developing before in the commun ity, but usually only when particular parents or particular advocacy groups could put together a project and then go to government and try to arrange some kind of funding, and funding was all over the map. The children of parents who had the leisure time and the know how were getting the services, but they were very unevenly funded and there were great gaps throughout the province. Now what we are implementing is a gradual planning process for each individual with their families.

Again, the member opposite, when he talks about moving people into the commun ity, or developing 24-hour plans, keeps repea ting, and he did this last year, he said that we were moving people without the cooperation of their parents, or coercing the parents; and I asked him, Madam Speaker, for evidence of that because I had explicitly said, and the policy directive had gone out, that there was not to be coercion and if there was any evidence of it we would look into it. And what did I get, Madam Speaker?

Two names arrived here with not even a signature or an indi cation 988 of what the names represented, but we did guess and double checked and went to see those ind ividuals and I think came up with a reasonable explanation, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact, there are one or two individuals that I know of at MDC who could, according to all the people who work with them, profit from community living, and we have not moved them into the commun ity.

I repeat, we have not moved them into the commun ity, Madam Speaker, because we belie ve, at this stage of building the community option, it's extremely important to build community support and to give parents time to sort out, to see how it's working for other people before they want to make a decision for their own family membe r. We would have the legal author ity, Madam Speaker, to override those parents because the Public Trustee does have legal authority , but we have chosen not to, for the very reason that we want this program to have the support and the cooperation of parents.

Now let's get to the question of the institution. Madam Speaker, I don't know where the member opposite picks up memos and notes and whate ver. There is a great quantity of discussion goes on in any government department prior to a policy decision being made. There are people who want no institutions; there are people who want only institutions; there are people who want a blend; there are people who want midd le-sized institutions; there are people who want large group homes; there are people who want small group homes; there are people who want no group homes.

Madam Speaker, far from running away from all this difference of opinion, we deli berately structured the planning process of Welcome Home to include all those groups, to include the province-wide groups at the provincial planning level and to include all the local groups, not just one group, but any local groups who were so organized, in the regional planning teams. Madam Speaker, we made available to those groups, to the representatives of thos e groups, all th e information.

The policy decisions were deba ted openly , Madam Speaker, so that people, in a way they never had before, had input, had access to the information, had a chance to deba te the various factors before the moves were made. At the Developmental Centre - a centre I remind you that used to have 1, 10 0 people and del ivered primarily custodial care - we will be under 600 by the summer. Madam Speaker, the programming that was available in that institution has only had a relatively recent history.

It was basically custodial care, but partly because of the work done by people in the institutions working with the mentally retarded, partly because of the academic people working in uni versity schools of nursing and so on, we've become much more adept in helping to find ways to teach or enable the disabled people to learn. Many more have now become toilet trained; many more have developed some of the social skills. We have now got them all in different clothing. There is some decor around the building. There is some furniture, which before it was thought couldn't survive the onslaughts of the retarded.

There have been a lot of chan ges of that sort. The program area is relatively new. There's an alm ost endle ss quantity of program resources that could be ab sorbed there. There's speech hearing and

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 comm unication; th ere's physiotherap y, th ere's occupational therapy; there's special medical supports; there's vocat ional training; there's educational training. Madam Speaker , each one of those services, those developmental programs is under development in the institution. The services are also being del ivered in the communi ty, but in a di fferent way.

For example, instead of bringing a child into Winnipeg for expensive therapy , what we have is a mobile therapy team which is going to pla ces like Thompson, which is trav elling out to the rural areas, and they spend an evaluative time with the child; they put them through the various therapies and they enable the staff, or the family if appropriate, that's working with the child day-to-day to learn those skills so they aren't completely dependent on the hour they spend with the profes sional. The professional is teaching the people who are working in the community to give them those supports.

We are giving developmental services through the community channel that over time will grow and grow. Of course, they're at the early stages now, but the fact is there's a commitment to delivering them within the centre. I have walked through the centre with the member opposite. We have shared with him all our information on square footage and population and staff ratios. Now, Madam Spe aker , unless he cannot hear, or unless he does not know how to remember , I don't know what he does with that data.

The current data I had, is that we have moved from the minimum fire and safety space requirements to where we are currently - our goal was to get to 12 0 square feet - we're currently at an average of 11 8. There is a range from around 89 to 14 0 square feet of living person per individual. Not palatial, I agree, but well above the minimum standard and going in the right direction. I think we should be judg ed in terms of our program and development at the institution, not against some ideal standard, although I have that as a goal.

I would like to get the best possible service over time, but I wonder what the members would say about a tax bill that was put out to the public, that would cover ideal conditions and services ·for everyone. It's some thing we have to build over time. But we have demons trated the commitment, Madam Speaker , to build those services over time.

That's the very reason why we put in the sort of tax burden that we did, because we believe in the community ethic, where the people who have more share with those who have not We believe it's time that the mentally retarded citizens come into their own and have access to a fuller share of life's opportunity and the community supports. Madam Speaker , with regard to staff ratios. I don't know, again, how it use to be before, but on every indicator we have more staff per resident than has existed at that centre before.

Of course the total num bers have gone down because the total num bers of residents have gone down, but the test of whether the quality is improving and the care is on the ratio, on the ratio of staff to resident, there is improvement. It was also alle ged by some that we were moving only the most capable out of the institution. Wel l, quite frank ly, Ma dam Sp eak er, we determ ined at the beginning of the program that we would not do that, that we would take a mixture, and that we would take level . . . As a matter of fact, if anything, our bias is 989 more to the level thr ee, four, five than to the one, two.

Now it's fair to say that a lot of the one's and two's had moved out in previous years, but our cross

section of people who've moved out through Welcome Home, if anything, is biased to the more needy, rather than to the less needy. The member opposite takes some paper that he said was distributed in February'82, I think. I was not the Minister then, Madam Speaker . All I know is that as long as I' ve been the Mi ni ster, talking about institutional ization in community care, that I have said very clearly what we want is more balance in the system.

We did deli berately choose not to spend $2.5 million to $3 million on a fire and safety upgrade at North grove; instead , to grad ually im prove the program at the institution, but to downsize it, move 220 people to the communit y, and also pick up 220, as a matter of fact, we've actually picked up 300 of the people most at risk of institutionalization, and so enriching their service that they could be cared for in the community and would not have to return to the institution. Now that was a policy choice, Madam Speaker.

That's the kind of choice that should be deba ted here, but it should be debated honestly and up front because, if the members opposite are saying that they think we should have put $2.5 million into a North grove fire and safety upgrade, and that would be not one penny, not one penny for program impr ovement or community option anywhere else, and then that we should have added more and more and more on top, I don't think have at all a realistic grasp of the financial pressures on government Madam Speaker, we know resources are scarce.

We know, as a result of the recessi on /depression, as a result of the Federal Government consistently not to give Manitoba what we think is our fair share through EPF and equalization, that our ability to raise money in Ma nitoba, to meet all these needs is severely constrained. Now, Madam Speaker , it would be remiss of us not to ident ify the policy options and not to put our money where we think the best type of service can be given.

How do you think I would feel standing up here this year say ing, yes, we have made significant impr ovements in the institutions, and I know people could manage better in the communi ty, but we couldn't get around to it Madam Speaker , I'm proud of the choice that we made to move people out into the commun ity. I' m proud of the fact that we have involved many , many dozens and dozens of community people, parents and so on in building up the community boards. I would be surpris ed if some of the agencies didn't say we could do more and more and more.

I would like to see impr oved funding over the years, too, but I think we should be judged by the improvement over time. There was no system of day programming and work shops, there was no system. What th ere was was little islands of activity, usually supported on a shoestring by volunteer groups. There is no capital program in the vocational VRDP, the Voca tional Rehabilitation Development Program, that is our cost-sharing vehicle with the Federal Government. We're currently engaged in trying to renegotiate that agreement so we do get capital program. But we haven't sat idly by, Madam Speaker .

We've made these particular workshops, and

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 the very ones that were ident ified by the member opposite, Virden, Boissevain and St. Malo, we have identified those very workshops for coverage under our Community Places Program. We've all ocated a special fund in order to ensure that they have capital support, because we have recognized that is a shortcoming in the total syste m. But you don't go from the absence of system to a fully mature system overnight. What's important is that you're making progress along the road.

I think if the member opposite would spend some time asking for some of the data and discussing it, rather than jumping to conclusions, that because somebody says there's overcrowd ing or under staffing that there must be, I would certainly have more respect for the kinds of criticisms he gives, because it's true, the mentally retarded citizens have not had really a very fair deal anywhere in the count ry. Other provinces are dealing with this issue, with far more Draconian measures than we are.

New Bruns wick, which you could hardly call a hotbed of socialist radicalism, New Brunswick just closed their children's institution. They literally closed it within one year and placed everyone in the communi ty. I don't know whether they followed it up with appropr iate supports or help to the families, I really don't know that, Madam Speaker.

But here I think the process that we chose, a gradual process, a cooperative planning process, not starting with any fixed pattern, that group homes or workshops had to look and be a certain size, but work based on the need of the individual, the regional need, the involvement of parents in the commun ity. I think it's been a most responsible approach, somewhat risky, because you do involve people with many dif ferent opinions. Give them access to a lot of information, and a lot of them are going to want a lot more, they're going to try and hold out for their particular opinion.

But that's the democratic process that I respect, Madam Speaker. I think it's by involving themselves in that kind of process, and asking the questions, dreaming the dreams, wanting more, wanting the best, that over time you build the public will and the public know-how to deliv er the very kind of good programs that we want. Ma dam Sp eaker, at th e Developmental Centre, because we recognize that those citizens do have a need for more than just custodial care, we have commi tted $2. 7 million to an Activities Building, which will be opening in a couple of months.

Now the reason the member opposite finds it confusing is he keeps believing his own rumour. He keeps believing his own rumour that we have committed to closing institutions. Madam Speaker , what we have committed to, and I repeat, I don't know about February 1982, but since I have been Minister there has never been a statement to close institutions. There has been a commitment to build more balance into the system, and then to assess.

My personal belief is that people have a right to have the support in the least restrictive environment but, Madam Speaker , I don't know, at this stage, or with my degree of understanding of the special needs, where the balance is going to be. I want to see a continuum of services. Ye s, I have the bias toward the community in the sense, I think, the ind ividual has the right to be in the least restrictive and the most commu nity integrated situation that they individually can manage.

But that doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that 990 there is probably going to be, in my lifetime, and certainly the year 2000 is a long way away, I wish we were planning with that kind of a time horizon. But I think our very commitment to improve the quality of care and programming at the institution is evidence that we are not committed to removing institutions. When we first announced the Welcome Home, and we said it had three parts; it had the downsizing of MDC by 220; the picking up of 220 most at risk in the community - generally because they had aging care givers, it's a new problem.

Mentally retarded people used to die younger , now with medical support and greater care they are living lon ger, but their parents are getting older and can't necessarily manage them throughout their lifetime. So we were committed to picking up 220 most at risk in the community; and the thir d promise, Madam Speaker, which always seems to be forgotten when we are talking about our government thrust in care for the mentally retarded, was to improve the programming and the facilities in the institutions.

Now, it's true, had we given all the increased resources that we've put into care of the mentally retarded, and put them all in the institution, we could have moved faster there. Of course, that's true and that's a legitimate opinion. But we took a pol icy cho ice wher e we wanted to do wnsize th e institutions. We do want to demolish Northgrove. Northgrove is an aging building; it's a large dormit ory-style living residence which was the best that people could aspire to years ago. But we know now that people do th rive better with more personal pri vacy.

So I disagree, with respect, with the member opposite that we should keep Northgr ove open. I think it's appropria te to demolish it and not carry staffing costs and heating costs and so on, but to redir ect that money to quality services for the people. The particular alle gations around fire and safety I think were gone into in great detail last year. I know that the advice I had from my department was that there was some of the equipment that would have been req uir ed to do the fir e and safety up grade for Northgrove, but the equipment was only a portion of the total cost.

What would have had to be done was a restructu ring of all the door frames so that they could, in fact, accommodate the equipment, and we did confer with the Fire Commissioner and, in fact, put in a combination of fire alarms, and we put in a process to check all the doors and to have them regularly checked so that there would be no problem after that initial complaint that one or two of the doors were sticking. We had several drills, the regular drills, Madam Speaker, to ensure that all the residents could be evacuated in an appropri ate tim e. The Fire Commissioner agreed with that approach.

On the issues of improving the centre with air conditioning I think is an imp ortant point; but, given the choice between fire and safety and air conditioning, I think, appropr iately , the fire and safety has to come first. North grove is now officially empty of residents. There is a vocational workshop that will carry on there until the activities building opens in a month or two, and then that building will be ready for demolition. So, Madam Speaker, again, I think more of the points will come up during the detailed Estimates. I am prepared to table the information, and the information

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 over time. I'm ready to say I'm guilty of not having the ide al system in pla ce in Mani toba, either in the community or in the institutions. But the way I believe I should be judged, and the work of my depart ment, is the progress that we have made while we have been responsible. On that score, Madam Speaker, our record wi ll stand us in good stead.

QUE STION put, MOTION carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Su pply to be granted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture, and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Health. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: The comm ittee will come to order . The Honourable Mini ster. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Ok ay, if you've got your forecasted expendit ures summ ary, the main appropriat ion, I'd like to answer the question that was asked of me last night.

My department did request supplementary funding on two occasions during the 19 86-87 fiscal year. Our first request was submi tted utilizing the September 3 cash flows and totalled $8,474.8 million. We did receive preliminary approval for $6,96 1.6 million from Treasury Board on the understanding, however, that we would review our situation again as a result of the December 30 cash flow forecast. You will recall, at your request, we provided a copy of the over expenditures by subappropriation which in actuality was the December 30 cash flow.

Based on this cash flow, we returned to Treasury Board with a request for $8 ,414 .8 million of supplementa ry funding which was approved. I should mention that during the thr ee months between the September 30 cash flow and the December 30 cash flow, there were changes in the cash flow requirements of some program ming. I'm sure that you can un derstand that some in creased while others found that they didn't need quite as much money as initially requested. Therefore the di fference between our first request and our second request was actually $60,000.00.

If you bear with me for just a minute, I'll explain the final supplementary funding requested, as you may have di fficulty following it from the December 30 cash flow. As I have just mentioned, our request for the Treasury Board was for $8,41 4.8 million which was pla ced in the following appropropriation: Now, if you see 21 (2)(

g) Home Care Assistance would be $7,875.7 million; 21( 3)(b)

(1) Regional Operations, Salaries $161. 2 million; 21( 3)(

b) Regional Operat ions, Other Expenditur es $377.9 million, for a total of $8,41 4.8. million. Now looking at the

summary page we provided, you'll notice that $7,875.7 million shown under Community Health Services Program for Appropriation 21. 2. This is the main appropriation under which home care is funded. 991 Just under this is 21. 3, Community Health Services Operation, which shows 708. 1. This requires a bit of an explanation as to the two num bers I just read out for the region, total only , 539. 1. The difference between the 70 8.1 and the 539. 1 is the 16 9 that appears as unincum bered funds at the bottom of your page.

This is basically an acc ounting ent ry, as unincum bering, the 16 9,000 meant that we actually needed only 539.1 in Supplementa ry Funding, the amount that was approved in the end. Actual ly, if you totalled the negatives amount on the

summary page, you'll find that they add to one million, five hundr ed and fifty-two point two, which relates to funds that were no t required. In other words, we were told to look at what we hadn't spent. The net amount of the Supplementary Fundin g request then was six million, eight hundr ed and sixty two point six, the numb er shown at the bottom of the page. As you can see, the majority of the request relates to the Home Care Program. The additional funding was req uir ed due to incr eased caseload volume and inten sity, and this generally translated into a significantly higher payroll that was anticipated.

The additional 161. 2 required for Regional Operations, Salaries, was to provide for a shortfall in the general salary increase. Our contract with the MGEA was renegotiated as of late September 1986, and we don't normally budget for this in advance as any in crease is not confirmed until negotiations are completed. The add itional 377.9 was required on Regional Operations. Other is related to operating costs req uired for additional travel for staff to provide service to the incr eased home care caseload, as well as an increase for supplies, telephone, vehicles, etc. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I thank the Min ister for that answer and I'm going to have to, probably by the middle of next week, review it in Hansard. Hansard's extremely tardy in getting to us. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could beg the indu lgence of the Min ister. We passed, late yesterday afternoon, Hearing Cons ervati on. I'd like to pose one question to the Min ister, if he wouldn't mind, on that one. I forgot to bring this up yesterday, but the needs throughout the province in speech pathol ogy and audiology have been under review for presumably some time now.

A report was done for the department, I believe in July, and it was "An Assessment of Provision of Speech Language Patholo gy and Audiology Services in Manitoba." Patrick Alexander , PhD., was the author of that report. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the Min ister if that is a report that could be made availabe, and the reason I ask for that is the concern I had expressed yesterday in terms of the . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: That report is gone to Planning and Priorities, so I couldn't give you an answer at this time. You're suggest ing that this would be made public? MR. D.

ORCHARD: I'm just wondering if I can get a copy of that, but that would be public. HON. L. DESJARDINS: As I say, I'd have to wait to see that the committee deals with it.

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. We ll, could you, Mr. Min ister, check that out, because the ind ications that I got from the individual who called me was that we have an un derservicing problem in terms of both speech pathology and audiology - audiology only being part of the Hearing Conservation that we passed yesterday - but you'll recall my concern that we did not make use of about 20 percent of the operating expenditure funds in that department as well, which I questioned whether we were seeing a deemphasization of audiology through the department.

So if the Min ister could take that under advisement and report back at a la ter da te, that would be appreciated. The Min ister . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, I can give you this now, that we had the same concerns as were expressed and this is where we granted the approval to hire a consultant to assess the problem and recommend a course of action. Now this is pretty well the same thing that happened with the Min ister of Community Services who was besieged today and these things come back to haunt you. So you know, you're making an assessment or recommendation.

You don't necess arily have all the money, but that's the chance we have to take. I'd have no objection of making it public, but I'd have to wait to see what the decision of Planning and Priority is. But I want you to know that we have the same concerns and we had trouble recruiting some of these people also. We did pick up quite a bit in the'8 1 -82. I think we impr oved quite a bit, and you'r e right, that we didn't spend that much money lately on that.

That's not saying that it's not important, although it might not have been our priority at this time for added money because of the other concerns we might have had. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, just a final comment on that. I don't kn ow. The individual who called me has ind icated that in her estimation, the availability of service is limited and that families and children are unable to avail themselves. Now that's often a complaint of the Department of Health.

I mean the demand for service, we have already acknowledged, is unlimited, but if the report ind icates that Manitobans are under serviced, I think that's (

a) an important thing to know, but it's important from the standpoint that then we can de bate in commit tee an approach to resolving that. It may not be that government assume 100 percent of the funding costs because it's not an insured service. Rather than get hung up on the aspect of 100 percent provision of service, which is under available to Manitobans, let's talk about what the needs are, assess them, see how we meet them, and that's my interest in the report, given the di scussion I had with what I . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: We agree.

I'm sure that we'd ha ve to take into consideration the role of the Department of Education for school age . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, absolute ly. This is not just simply the Department of Health, but your department was the one that commissioned the step, so I'll wait for the Mini ster to get back to me on that. 992 Mr. Chairman, we're into Continuing Care. I have to tell the Min ister that I posed a series of questions, and I have been to da te, and the Min ister has been chastising me or cautioning or whatever words - I won't put words in his mouth - but he's been concerned of my approach to these Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that he should be concerned as well, because in the Continuing Care Division under this Depa rtment's Estimates, the budget for Home Care - and I haven't had a chance to go through his figures, but we've got according to the Forecast of Expenditures, a gross over expenditure by line of $8, 16 4,000.00. That's a 33 percent over budget expenditure. Mr. Chairman, first off, I should establish with the Min ister whether that gross line of expenditure is accurate in this documentation. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The 8,164? MR. D. ORCHARD: Ye s. Mr.

Chairman, rather than having us hedge around and the Mini ster accuse me of putting him on trial, etc., etc., I simply ask the Min ister, when you went to Treasury Board, obviously you were aware of that size of a request for additional mone y. Did you attempt to satisfy yourself that the Home Care Assistance Program was, (

a) targeted and meeting the needs of the people? Were the expenditures properly un dertaken, and was th e system of control with management in place to handle the system? Because we've got an expenditure here that's 33 percent over budget, and what in fact we have, in terms of num bers for this year, where the Minister is talking about a substantial increase in health care funding, in fact we're considering the amount that was over expended last year, we haven't got - I haven't done the num bers; yes, here I have it - a 40 percent incr ease in funding to Home Care Assistance.

We've only got really $664,000 of new money in Home Care. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We've what? MR. D. ORCHARD: This year's budget, the way it's presented, print over print, sugge sts alm ost a $10 million in crease in home care assistance. In fact, it is only $664,000 because last year's program was so dramatically overspe nt. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You're not talking about voted last year. You're talking about actual. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ye s. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Over voted which is - I want to make sure the way he feels that we're trying to mislead, not with the information we're ...

The only person we're trying to mislead is the Minister with all that information. The $10 million is clearly over the voted last year, vote over vote, but not the actual. I agree with that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I still don't understand why the adjus ted figure - but I mean that's semantics - from last year doesn't show something like in here. We've gone through that and I don't want to get into that argument again. There isn't enough time in the day.

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 But, there will be virtually no increase. By the time you factor through your salaries of some, I presume, 3,000 home care workers, you're probably not going to be offering as much service as you did last year in home care, because you were overexpended last year and you're simply budgeting properly for it this year. Now, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister , did he assure himself that the department was under proper financial and management control when he went to Treasury Board to ask for the additional $8.1 million? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I have no problem with that at all.

What I did say, by the way, just to answer the first statement that was made, where I took exception, yesterday, it was on the personal attack that I felt on individuals who could not defend themselves and who are not responsible for policies in the department. That's my responsibility and I've got to accept that. The day to-day operation of the department, of course, there are enough people that have that responsibility, but I can 't get away from the overall responsibility. I must accept that. This is what I was trying to say yesterday. We must realize that we 're going through a very difficult time.

It's not like in the Schreyer years ; it's not like the Roblin years . There's no doubt about that. Yes, we did. We are not getting the share that we were getting from the Federal Government before . Those are all factors . Those are important factors. The situation, as I said, is that we are looking at changes and then there is the situation - I know that and I don't want to prolong that either, to repeat it constantly, but we have to look at the deficit. We're reminded of that every day and we have to look at also the taxing. So all those things are factors. We looked at our system and we had a report on that.

On some of them we were doing very well, on others we were having difficulties . One of them was continuing care. It's very, very hard to get a handle on that. But that's the way ... I'm not really defending it, I'm saying that for ever and a day that's the way that the health and the hospitals were conducted . In other words, hospitals were expected, maybe expected is a wrong word. But certainly they were bringing in deficits and that was accepted because a lot of things were not here .

In fact, I've said earlier that they were not really all deficits, and they're still not all deficits , because certain things you can't control. It's the same thing in the department. I might have so much money in the department , then I have a youngste r that has to get an operation in Toronto . Am I going to say no, I've got no money in the department. No, and I don't apologize for that and I'll continue , if that's mismanagement, I'll continue to mismanage . And home care is in that area. We're trying . . .

There's no way that I can start going after deinstitutionalizing at all if I haven't got something else in place. All right , we started last year, and more and more we brought in this program that you were talking about ; we brought in the . .. that was talked about yesterday. We talked about the early discharge in certain hospitals and so on - all right. Normally , that should save hospitals the cost of hospitals. We did some of that. But we spent more on home care. You might say, well why do you have a deficit in the hospitals?

Exactly, because we were taking people out of a hospital, 993 thinking that we were going to save beds . But right away somebody would go in that bed. That's what is going to be so difficult to sell to the public, but it has to be sold . Some of those beds will have to be clos ed or we 're going to go right through the roof , and that's the concern . No , I don't apologize. Certainly, we're going to try to improve it. I think we're trying to computerize. There's a lot of the system, part of the system , pristine home care that isn't computerized .

Now that might help, and there is a changing time; we've increased - we practically invented home care here in this province . The point is that it served us well but we have to look at it , we have to change. The people are starting to demand for instance, the physically disabled are saying: Well, fine there 's something else that is needed and there's going to be a lot of money spent , and we could take an educated guess but we won 't get it to the minute. Can you just imagine the criticism that would happen in the House?

All of a sudden one of the MLA's would say - you know, we're waiting for home care , and I'd say well there's no more money, you have to wait till next year. Now , we 're told that we 're not spending that much money this year, but we did increase over what was approved last year - we took some money from other areas probably. We can always debate that . Yesterday, I was chastised for not spending all the money in certain areas, and that was valid . It was for different reasons . It might not have been there.

I know that I attracted your attention to a document that you had , and you 're going to hit me with that document when we come to talk about mental illness . Because you see that there's money that wasn't spent that was used for home care. And where do you priorize? I know that you're talking about prevention. And they 've been talking about prevention for years and years and years, but it was so costly to treat people and look at the sick that , you know it was always next year or whatever there is left and that 's starting to change , maybe not enough .

But when you 're faced with somebody that needs the help now , are you going to talk about prevention? Although prevention is very important , fine, but if you have a choice, I think you're going to go for home care. Put somebody in the hospital, if there's no beds you 've got to give them the service at home. So that is what is happening now. We spent more than was authorized last year and we have to make up for that , and there 's such a thing as a Treasury Board. We all know that. I'm not talking out of turn when I say that and they say, fine, we don't get the approval. You find it, we've got to find it.

And that was, at the time, one of the first priorities. And that's what we dealt with. Now , it is true that there 's not such an increase as what we actually spent last year but we're also told that we spent money that we weren't authorized to spend . And, fine . But there will be more than that . This is what I'm trying to explain and we 'll come during the hospitals tonight; I'll talk about that some more. But we are now, I was asked the question in the House today.

Now we are saying to the hospitals, you have a deficit and I pointed that out in my opening remarks while introducing the Estimates of my department. And I showed what the deficit was and I also showed and I think there 's a chart for that that accompanied the

Tuesday, 14 April, 1987 information that we gave you and the chart which sh owed th at we did accept some de ficit. I don't remember if it was the second column, if you remember it. Then, the rest we said to the hospitals, we met with every single hospital and we said we're not going to go with this, we want an orderly fashion. And we're going to try to reduce this deficit, to cut this deficit. You'll have to pay that back over a period of two years. That's what we're aiming. We 're not going to do anything that's going to be dangerous and so on, but we're going to be tough.

And that money, we were able to retain that money in the base; and this is what we will use as we save there to go and to bring this to help us provide the service in the communi ty health vis-a-vis the institutions. So we expect to have probably more money and some of it could go to home care again. So you could have the same position that we have, what was voted and I stretched and I screamed and I kicked like all the other Min isters to get as much as I could.

And this is what we have and we, as I say, there's a possibility that if we save from the hospitals, if we're successful, fine, that we can use that money to provide the service, some other services, maybe set up a clinic where nurses would give help with the primary care, for ins tance. Or home care, but some of the service in the communi ty. So I don't admit or accept that we've been a failure, that we're not responsible. I figure that we can do better and we're doing that; in some areas we're doing quite well. The report tells us that we're doing quite well, in others we aren't doing quite as well.

And we're checking that and as I say, if we can modernize the system in certain instances and when we're set we know where we're going; when we know a little more about home care.

You know it's okay to put the money and say you don't overspend, in certain areas, you know, it's just a guess, and I would think because we're going to spend more, as I say, if somebody needs an operation or if we have so much money for Medicare unless we get a handle on volume, that's what's going to happen or if we have more youngsters, if we have open- heart surgery here on youngsters, although we're recruiting; we should, when we were sending to Toronto, or some other areas, when we sent people in other areas, we'd spend the mon ey.

I don't think anybody would tell us, well you know, you haven 't got money, you're only allowed 10 open-heart operations a year and so on. So it is difficult, but I don't feel that we've failed or that we haven't been honest with the public or with the members of this committee. And I would imagine that years, as was in the past, not enough information was provided in the past. I think that you're doing that; I'm not suggesting that we don't care about the Estima tes. I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting that we do our best to be accurate.

You know, and I remember years if I wanted to put out, I remember years just before an election when the Lyon Government brought in a mini budget and there was all of a sudden, there was all kinds of money for home care and that was an area that was never spent; that couldn't have been spent. So without implying any motives I think that has been done and it's clear , has been done. We have to minim ize this as much as possible but there's some area; and then treasury has a job to do and when 994 you come back for more money they say well get it from within.

And that was done by a previous government and I dare say will be done in the future again. So we have to cut certain things and that is why, of course, that we all have different priorities, we do the best we can, but every member of Cabinet probably has different, not only of Cabinet, of this committee have different priorities so we will be criticized for over spending in an area and we'll be critici zed for under spending in another area. So, but that will be done, we try to mini mize and to have as little of that as possible.

But having said that, I don't think that all of a sudden we should point the finger at the ADM or people on staff and blame them for all that. I accept the blame for that. And Treasury Board and Cabinet must accept if there is any blame. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me tell the Min ister that, and I am not arguing with him about the home care program being a necessary program to support individuals in varying degrees to maintain them in their home circu mstances. And that's a program tha t has been on the go for at least, I suppose seven years now. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Close to 10, I guess. MR.

D. ORCHARD: Or maybe even 10 . Regardless of the numbers, it's a program which doesn't have a political for and against associated with it. I don't think that any political party in Manitoba is actively opposed to the provision of home care. Where I' ve been consistent in my criticism with the Min ister is whether he can assure hi mself, hence his Cabinet colleagues, hence the taxpayers, that when we spend dollars, it looks pretty good to announce 10 million in crease in home care. It's great politics to do that. Makes it look like you're doing a wonderful job of providing care to the people of Manitoba.

It's good politics, but in reality you're not spending 10 million more this year , in this year's budget because you over expended by 33 percent last year. Now, I want to know, from the Mini ster whether the monies have been spent properly. That's what I'm trying to get at. Whether this program is under control. And unfortun ately, whether we like it or not, that gets back to whether your senior management, your ADM have the ability to manage these programs. From that standpoint I'll just take you through a series of years. 1981- 82, the actual expenditure in home care was $13,61 0,000.00.

That year the Adjusted Vote - not the Adjusted Vote, pardon me, the actual print esti

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-28
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 28.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	198e6843e5f5ef3cc26e72c8de7d14781f36336f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).