LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 6 April, 1987. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HEALTH MR.'CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: You were mentioning this afternoon that we just sort of wanted to go through them informally , but can I take it that we are done, with 1.(b)(1)? The Honourable Minister . ~., · . DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Chairman, they suggest that ",

e) would go all over it and then everything would be passed at once, the whole resolution, so they can come back . MR. CHAIRMAN: Will ii be resolution-by-resolution then, section-by -section? Is that what you wanted? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, this one anyway. let's see how this works . MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The others , Mr. Chairman, it might be a little more difficult because there's staff who I would want here . I wouldn 't want to have people running back and forth. MR. CHAIRMAN: One resolution at a time, so we're dealing with Resolution No. 1 now.

When we're done with that, we'll pass it and go on to the next. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, the others we might go by numbers. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. HON . L. DESJARDINS: In answer to one of the questions that was asked, I'll try anyway. In the 1986-87 Estimates, the following branches were ident ified. There was Personnel Management Services, Human Resource Management , Management and Analytical Services. During '86-87 the following changes were made which are reflected in the '87-88 Estimates; that is, Human Resource Management was amalgamated with Personnel Management Services and is now identified as 21(1)(

g) Human Resource Management , and Management and Analytical Services, comprised of Systems and Computer Services as well as Internal Audit. During '86-87 Assistant Computer Services were transferred and amalgamated with the Manitoba Health Services Commission . 21(1)(

h) Internal Audit remains with the Audit Division . MR. CHAIRMAN : The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD : Mr. Chairman, the Minister has indicated that eight from what used to be presumably 695 Management and Analytical Services have now been transferred over to the Health Services Commission . Now, presumably , later on, when we get into the Health Services Commission and the administrative line there, will that be where we would be more appropriately able to discuss the - we hear rumors about an amalgamation of the department with MHSC . Now, we can wait till HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I suggest that maybe it would be better when we attack mostly the Manitoba Health Services Commission. So on that line, when we start Administration of the Manitoba Health Services Commission, that might be the best place. MR. D. ORCHARD: Just a simple question then : Is this transfer of the .eight from Management and Analytical Services an indicator of the kind of amalgamation that's going to happen? Is that our first step? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, because that's going to the Commission as well. In this sense, that we're trying to coordinate and not duplicate things , yes, in that sense . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a wee bit of time on Research and Planning before we move off that topic. Now Research and Planning over the past two or three years have been undertaking a significant number of reviews . I haven 't had access to and I haven't seen a number of the studies that have been done , but Manitoba and Medicare Report was the one that was probably one of the more comprehensive studies done on the Manitoba health care system to give it a comparison basis to the system across Canada . I know I've gotten into this topic on two other occasions at this stage of Estimates .

On other occas ions as well, I've used information from Manitoba and Medicare . I guess I'd have a few simple questions and - (Interjection)- Yes, I see there is a copy of it there . Going to such pages as 26 and 27, 27 particularly , where you're talking unit costs , costs per patient day, etc., and then in other areas, you compare the utilization days per 1,000 of population and all the various charts , and then of course you end up with page 33 with the gross salary and wage cost per patient day. The basic question is: Have those gaps narrowed?

Has this report been updated so you know whether the gaps have narrowed , or has the trend to having a bigger spread in cost per patient day, salary and wage cost per patient day, is that gap widening further in Manitoba compared to the rest of Canada? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, this has not been updated. This would take another year or so. This , of course, is ammunition for recommendation . There is no recommendation . It's mostly facts and information that is needed. This was used very extensively by the Health HON. L. that they

Monday, 6 April, 1987 Review Committee at this time. Now we're using that, also we're very, very worried - I don 't know if I mentioned that last year, I know I mentioned it in some instances , the concern with the teaching hospitals. But we want to make sure. It's difficult to make sure we're comparing apples and apples and oranges and oranges, because there are different setups in different jurisdictions . But there is a big enough difference that we know we have concern on that. That is the teaching hospital mostly that we are looking at on that.

Now as far as the staff, there is no doubt we felt that, compared to the private sector, the people were underpaid, for a time were getting less pay a few years ago and now they're caught up and they might be a little ahead of the private sector . Those are the people employed in the hospital other than professionals. MR. D. ORCHARD: As I read the Manitoba Medicare Report, there are two things impacting and this is where the Minister and I got into a mini debate last year and I want to continue it again this year.

Because if you take a look at page 33, table 5, where you've got the gross salary and wage cost per patient day, you go down - and unless my arithmetic is out, but it won't · be out by very much - you've got a range in there for public general hospitals now being $12.22 a day to the teaching hospitals being $39.04 per day above the national averages;

whereas, you know, as recently as 1971, we were below the national averages in all of those categories. Now comment is made on page 38 where it says, "Thus Manitoba hospitals paid less for their labour but used more of it, in teaching hospitals a lot more." Then further at the bottom of the page, the last sentence says, "But while wages were moving towards national levels, paid hours per patient day and patient days per capita, especially in Manitoba teaching hospitals, have been moving out beyond the national levels by a substantial margin.

Now I appreciate that if you're not comparing - it's my understanding that when you're talking gross salary and wage costs, you're not only talking your service unions, if you will, you're also talking nursing staff, support staff, you're talking management staff, as well, and physicians. Now it strikes me as being, particularly in the teaching hospital - and let's just deal for a minute on the teaching hospitals because between St. Boniface and the Health Sciences Centre, they represent a very substantial portion of our hospital line in funding .

Now to establish national averages, when you've got your physician, even your physician costs and the nursing costs, support staff costs . It seems to me that if you're developing national averages, you've got the Toronto's, the Vancouver's, even some of the Alberta hospitals in there where your salary bases are going to be, in some cases, substantially higher, like interns in Toronto, in teaching hospitals in Toronto are paid substantially better than they are in Manitoba. That's just a fact of the cost of living and other factors down there .

So that when you have the statistics which shows you that in our teaching hospitals in Manitoba that you've got a spread of, as of 1982-83 of $39.04 per day, 16 percent above the national average, which includes those high-cost centres , and that in 1971 those 696 same teaching hospitals were $6.04 or 11.5 percent below the national average - you 've gone from 11 percent below in '71 to 16 percent above in'82-83, even though you've got mitigating factors which should say that Manitoba should maintain a relatively lower average cost on salary, just because of the wage schedules .

So that sort of backs up, and I would presume, led to the statement that in teaching hospitals we use a lot more labour . That is where I have my difficulty with the Minister and I've posed some questions to him this Session. Because we have hospitals now that are developing plans to come in with no deficits . In doing that, some of them are contemplating , as Brandon General Hospital has already done, the closure of beds, of active treatment beds . Now the Minister has got a policy imposed by his Cabinet, presumably , wherein there are no-cut contracts in place, there are no layoffs that can be made.

Now in Brandon Hospital what they're doing to get around that, as I understand, is there may not be any layoffs; I think there's been one layoff in Brandon General Hospital. But what they are doing is they are taking the part-time staff and a part-time staffer that may have been putting in 30 hours a week is now down, for a figure, 20 or 15 hours a week. So there's no actual layoff of individuals, but the number of hours are down and that's the way the hospital is coming in.

The point I'm making with the Minister is that if you expect hospitals to live within a budget that you are now prescribing to them, that they cannot have a deficit, you explained to us this afternoon that you're going to pick up some $11 million in the Budget base line for the hospitals. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Anyway , the second column MR. D. ORCHARD: We won 't get hung up on numbers, whatever the value of the second column was in your presentation this afternoon . HON. L. DESJARDINS: If you include personal care homes and rural hospitals, that might bring it to 19, maybe that's what we're . . . MR. D.

ORCHARD: 11. 7 in the major hospitals? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, and 13 altogether. MR. D. ORCHARD: 13.3 including rural hospitals. Now, if you're going to expect those hospitals now to live within a budget - and they 've already got, as I figure it, a $10 million deficit between hospitals and personal care homes that they 're going to have to pick up because the adjustment only covers a portion of the $24 million - how do you expect them to do that , given that labour is roughly 75 percent, possibly higher, of your cost in a hospital, when you're imposing a no­ layoff policy and only staff turnover by attrition?

Is that a workable expectation to impose upon the boards and managements of hospitals? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I didn 't quite say, Mr. Chairman, that there would be no layoff policy . I said that the

Monday, 6 April, 1987 policy has not been changed. I also said at that time that every program or every submission from hospitals will have to be approved by the Manitoba Health Services Commission . I think my honourable friend will remember - he's certain ly heard me talk about this - that in the past there was a push all across the country and all across North America to deinstitutionalize. Even before we talked about deinstitutionalizing the acute care, the main one - and my friend referred to that this afternoon - was the mental health hospitals .

What happened at that time was that was a principle, and immediately they started by vacating as much as possible the institutions. First of all, the community was not ready to accept that at the time . Things have changed an awful lot . These were the days when any misf it or any sick people or anything were well taken care of, but hidden away somewhere. Now that has changed. The communities are now told, well you have to accept some of these people with you and work with these people, and there's been a big improvement. That was No. 1.

No. 2, there were no staff ready to accept these new responsibilities of working in the community other than the trained people in the institutions . Finally, there were no facilities or programs or anything to take care of them and to replace the hospitals. So, therefore, the people were released in the community and some of them , first of all, ended up in going directly to acute psychiatric beds and filling those. That wasn 't the intent for the acute hospitals to act as personal care homes, and we've heard a lot about that. We'll probably hear some more.

This was the situation, and then a lot of people without the proper programs were left walking around in the streets. You see that in the States in the big cities, where you have so many bag ladies and bag men and so on, many of them , a big proportion , a big percentage of those, are mentally ill who are left alone, and that is not good . So we said we'll not make the same mistake again . We are convinced - and it's not going to be easy, we know that - but we are convinced that we have to chang e the system, that we have to provide more service in the community.

When I say "we," I'm not talking about the New Democratic Government of Manitoba. We're talking about pretty well everybody in the health field. It's not something new. Every province and different countries in - well, you talk about this . There's nobody advocating more than Dr. Evans what should be done in these things . You know, because we had so many beds and they were filled beds - they'll always be filled - it doesn't mean that 's the only way.

We're changing the hospitals now in providing - you know there 's more of this when we're talking about tests and all these things to provide the health to keep people in the community with other programs. I think it 's at this we are going to look, and we're working on it. There's a committee representing the different workers that we're going to work with, that we are working with . Then whenever a plan is going to come in, we'll see if it's realistic. Then we'll see if, by closing these hospitals, that there will be othe r programs in place to take care of these people.

I showed you how much home care has gone up, and that's going to improve. 697 There might be different ways that I'm ready to discuss . I think I gave you an idea of those in my opening remarks . As I say, it's not going to be an easy thing to do, but then it will be by attrition . Fine, that's No. 1 obviously. Then there would be transfer in the same institution and between different institutions , and also people who should be redeployed in the program s that will replace the hospitals in other words, in the community , either home care - I think home care will change . An awful lot will be improved.

I think we have a very good program of home care , but it's got to change . It can 't just stay this way forever. We've got to provide for many things. You might find people in the community who are very sick at times, but it has been proven that these people might be, in certain cases , better taken care of in the home providing there's the service. It might be that we will reinstate teams of doctors who will go on this for home care and nurses and so on, and that has got to be done in an orderly fashion .

I say to you now, if this is not done in an orderly fashion and if we can't meet our target date, we might have to postpone that a bit , but we want an orderly way of doing things. Now that 's the only way. You know, let's put all our cards on the table. I showed you today that we had an increase of - what? - 176 percent increase since - I don't remember exactly - the last nine years. That's going up. My friend said that things have changed . We're not in trouble. It's not perfect; of course, it's not perfect.

That's what I tried to demonstrate today, that we were doing quite well and in fact we're not spending that much money compared to the States, and then they have 37 million people who have no insurance at all. But the point is we would not be responsible if we did not start planning for the change because we know, first of all, that we can improve the standards of care and so on, but also let's face it - and it's a very difficult thing to say, because the people of Canada and Manitoba like and love their care service, and they don't want anybody to take it away from them .

That makes it that much more difficult because you know the saying, why fix it if it ain't broke, and that's exactly what they're saying. But if we don't do something now to change this, we'll not be able to afford it. Now I must say very seriously that I did not try to do too much fedbashing. I've said, all right, they no longer accept the same percentage, the same share of care, and that's their right if they want. They chose to say the deficit comes first. We must cut down on the deficit, we leave that to the provinces.

That means the provinces have that responsibility but then I also stated that now, now while there's changes going through, because we must keep some of these things open, and we must prepare other programs to take over. And that transition period , that retraining and redeployment is going to take awhile and that's where I made this bid and, in fact, I received, I thought, encouragement from the Minister of Health, but it was kind of confusing . The Federal Minister of Health. He suggested that I suggest with the programs, and so on, and I think that they can help with some of these things.

Going back to the other thing about the facts in the teaching hospitals, I'm quite concerned . When it came

Monday, 6 April, 1987 out it made it look like we were way over the averag e. I want to make sure that we're comparing apples and app les and oranges and oranges and we have a committee working . We have people working with the different hospitals now to arrive at that , to try to solve it. It might be that there's too many programs also. It might be that we only need one and I think, if I remember, correct me if I'm wrong , my honourable friend suggested that might a possibility last year, I think it was he, said that maybe we should have only one teaching hospital. I'm just giving that as a concern.

We're certainly not making an announcement at this time but we're looking at that. Certainly there's been an improvement but, let's face it, there has been competition between the two teaching hospitals . I think we know that. These are some of the things, I hope, that we can get some information because right now with the facts that we have, that might not be absolutely correct, but there's such a big difference that we know there's something wrong.

But if the facts were correct the situation would be that to get back to spending the same amount as the average of Canada we would have to close the equivalent of, close a hospital like Victoria Hospital. That gives you an idea, if everything is right, but I have some concerns . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman , that isn 't what Manitoba and Medicare says . Manitoba and Medicare doesn 't say that to come up with the national averages you close Victoria Hospital.

What Manitoba and Medicare said and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are significantly above the national average in our cost­ per-patient day and it's driven primarily, if I read Manitoba and Medicare correctly, by our gross salary and wage cost per-patient day. I realize that it is perfectly good politics to knock hell out of the Federal Government . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, I haven't done too much of that. MR. D. ORCHARD: I'm not saying you did.

You used the word "cut-back" mind you, in your opening remarks , which is always a moot question because, we won 't get into that tonight because we'll just waste time . But what the Federal Government is doing that you decry is exactly the case that the boards of Brandon General Hospital and other boards make in terms of their funding is not adequate from the province . The Federal Government is saying we can 't afford to fund the provinces any more, the province is saying to the hospitals we can't afford to fund you the way you want. It's exactly the same scenerio only a different level. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It isn't because we're increasing our share and the Federal Government is decreasing. They're saying , no that's it. They're more or less saying, here, we're capping our contribution. I'm not saying that that's not their right but it isn't the same . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, what the Federal Government is attempting to do is to provide funding that they can afford to provide. The province likewise 698 is providing funding they think that they can afford to provide to the hospitals .

It 's esoteric to debate - we could debate it forever but basically both the Federal and the Provinc ial Governments are doing the exact same thing . They don 't have unlimited dollars at either the federal level or the provincial level and what is being made is forcing some hard choices by monetary considerations.

That's what happening and that's going to happen throughout all levels of government, throughout all departments because the taxpayer has come to the end of his tether, and now the next move is not unlimited spending as it was for the past 20 years in this country , it's going to be very precise and very rationed and very focused spending . That's why the question , and after two years I would hope that we would have a little more definitive answer , as to whether Manitoba 's position relative to the national average is something that can be remedied because I've used the figure before .

It's not a precise figure , I'll grant the Minister , but we have roughly a million -and­ a-half hospital patient days in the Province of Manitoba last time I looked at a recent MHSC Annual Report, roughly a million-and-a-half patient days . Right now we've got a cost in our teaching hospitals $46.90 per patient day above the national average . In public general hospitals, whatever category that may be, it's $21.48 and for general and allied special hospitals it's $39.80 per day.

If you pick a rough average of $30 a day, which I don't think would be too far out, using the teaching hospitals where a lot of our patients days are, $30 per patient day saved , just by bringing us down to the national average of cost . Not below like we could well be because of our salary costs being relatively lower than the Toronto's, the Vancouver 's and other high cost centres, just bringing it down to the national average you've got $30 by a million-and-a-half, you've got $45 million. We're talking an awful lot of money.

We're not talking about closing one single bed in achieving that , we're simply talking about investigating how it is we are that far above national average in cost per patient day. With this document two years old with a health reform group in place, with an active research staff , with this question posed now for the third year in a row, that's got to be something that any Minister facing the kind of financial problems he's facing, because you don 't have unlimited access to dollars any more around your Cabinet table and I understand that.

I think that most Manitobans understand that but most Manitobans can't understand, and of course not all Manitobans are even aware of these kinds of statistics, don't have a clue because it's not something that's been publ icized, but I think if Manitobans were faced with the choice of seeing a number of hospital beds closed or else an effort made to bring salaried and patient day costs down to national average , I think they'd say let's go for the latter because that's something that appears to be achievable without sacrificing standards of care because we're not saying that the national averages are below Manitoba standards .

We're not saying that all. I don 't think they are. I think that the standards across this country are relatively even . What we've got for now, the third estimate in a row , is a document that, I think , provides us with probably better targets in one area of health care , namely the hospitals , to identify where we've got some substantial

Monday, 6 April, 1987 cost saving and I'm not certain the Minister is moving on it and I'm not sure that this government is moving on it. I made the point last year and I'll leave it at this, we will debate it later on in the hospital line if necessary, but one of the problems this governm ent faces is that it has substantia l support from the union movement.

I suggest to you th at any move in the hospital system that takes on salaried costs involves taking on union membership and that is the toughest decision that this government will ever have to make and one tha t they won't make and will allow closing of beds bef ore they'll rectify this glaringly identifiable difference in average costs. I don 't find that an acceptable solution , and I don 't think Manitobans find that an acceptable solution.

And I've often made the case, and I hop e to make it on several different occasions as we go through Estimates, that we are adequately funding health , we may not be efficiently spending the money. And I think in here, in the hos pital system alone, is an example where there is room for increa sed efficiency. That has to be sought out, I believe, before you impo se upon the hospital boards who are making budgetary decisions and decisions on how they're going to manage to run their hospitals within the budget constraints that are issued to them before you allow them to close beds as an option.

And that may not be a bad option, providing you find that you use your remaining beds efficiently with lower patients stays, etc., etc. But this is a more acceptable option to the people of Manitoba in terms of investigating in seeing whether it is achievable to bring our costs down to national averages first before you start allowing the closure of hospital beds. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman , I made it quite clear that every hospital had to submit the ir plan to the commission and it would be looked at. That's No. 1.

What I disagree - I cannot agree with the honourable member, he is talking now as if it was wrong, necessarily wrong under all counts to close beds. And that I disagree with. I think that you will see a closure of beds - I think that's clear, he doesn't favour it. I don't mean that you're to do it in a way like I finished explaining and I'm not gonna explain it again. You have to be careful, and I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any beds at all. But we're talking about the progress, we're talking about all kinds of discoveries of drugs and equipment and everything.

And how can we pay for that if we don 't close beds . And why do we need the beds if we're told with this equipment you will save all kinds of beds. We have gone, like the Leader of the Liberal Party talking about different programs, we've done this right here , we've had an early discharge program at St. Boniface for quite awhile and it's working well. And we're going to look at all that so I would want to leave that option, it's not one or the other . We don't intend to close beds - we are saying that you don't need those beds and we are talking about efficiency exactly and we are talking about standards.

Having said that , I know what my honourable friend is saying . He is saying that the wages are too high and that might be something we can argue , that could be an ideology difference between the two groups. I 699 recogn ize that. This government, when they came to office, decided that they would no longer sponsor the health care on the back of some workers and they fel t that they should be - and this government did not apologize for that, they 've increased minimum wages.

Fine, it costs money, there is no doubt , a nd they' ve also said th at they want fair wages and I'm not going to hide that, I mean this is a dire ctive of government, I must accept that with the labor legislation and also the settlement of agreements and so on and I know that it costs money. As I say, eventually you have to look at that but it is not the only thing and that should not be a factor in, should we keep hospitals open or closed. I think that's one thing it might be that we can be accused of paying higher wages. That's one thing. But there 's a lot of factors that make a difference in the hospitals.

Wages certainly, we're not going to hide or pretend that's not the case , that's approximately 75 percent of the total cost of running the hospital. Okay. So that certainly is a factor and that will be look ed at and it might be that at times we'll have to discuss w ith them and say, hey, we must cut down on staff and also the wages, I mean that's something that will have to be looked at. But then there 's other things , it might be like a teaching hospital, it might be that we have too much, too many programs.

It might be that we have too many staff, but then on one hand we're told that we're burning out the nurses in some areas . So you know it's not going back to the old days. Any time that is discussed in the news media, I get a phone call or two from an older nurse or retired nurse who's saying " Oh God! In my day, we did this and we did that. " That's true. So the point is: what is right? I concede that the question , we could have a difference on that . I'm talking about the government now and the members of the Opposition . The government is saying, "We want to pay fair wages.

" Not just to the professionals, but the other people providing the service in the hospitals. And they've done that, and I said that even before my friend could question anything. I said that we recognized that those people were below the level of the private sector and they've caught up and surpa ssed that. So, you know, I can 't argue that, I think that's a responsibility that we have and we must do the best we can under the circumstances . But I recognize that my friend and his views anyway, of his party, might have a valid point. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I don 't want the Minister to be saying that it's my point or my party 's point that hospital workers are paid too much , etc. , etc. I have all along simply quoted from Manitoba and Medicare which was written by his director of Planning and Research, another individual from the directorate of Planning and Research, I believe is still there and Dr. Evans. It's their words , it 's his government's words in a report drawn up by his government. They're not my words.

You know I don't want the Minister to say that our solution, the Progressive Conservative solution is to attack the working people because that's the kind of class warfare that we don't need if we're going to resolve problems in the health care system. I'm simply pointing

Monday, 6 April, 1987 out facts that were given to us two years ago , which haven't been refuted, haven't been changed but also, no action has been taken on them , on the salary differences. No explanation . You're still telling me like you told me last year that you ' re studying the differences . So that, you know, that is an area that I believe Manitobans would expect , given the research documentation that's available to the government that they would move on .

I recognize from any kind of analysis you see of the U.S. hospital situation where they have HMO's and other capped insurance plans that in those systems you have much more outpatient service, you have much shorter length of patient stay in hospitals and you have fewer beds being used in hospitals. There are a lot of white elephant hospitals in the United States right now but yet for those people in the HMO's and the other forms of health insurance delivery systems , patient care has probably gone up.

It certainly hasn 't sagged because hospital beds are closed , and I've never made the point that we need every single hospital bed that we've had. I've never argued with the Minister on that. But what I point out to him is that now it appears as if the government policy is tying the hands of management and boards at the hospitals when you impose budget constraints on them, as well as constraints on how they can deal with surplus staff. The point is made whether it's legitimate or not, because I have to admit that I hear this from one side of the argument at Brandon General Hospital. That is the nursing staff.

The nursing staff say their contract is not a no-layoff contract,

whereas the support workers with CUPE - I believe it's CUPE out there - have no-layoff contracts. So you have nurses receiving less hours ,

whereas the support staff with 31 fewer beds , some 9 percent fewer beds, aren't affected . Now I don 't know whether that is right or wrong but , if it is correct, that certainly is tying the hands of management to do a total management picture when you expect them to come within budget. So we can get into this discussion on the Hospital line again and, no doubt, we will , but the point that I make again is that again I've got the answer from the Minister that they're studying the wage differentials, as outlined in Manitoba and Medicare . Ten months ago, that was the answer.

I would hope that we get some concrete proposals to debate. We may not agree with some of the proposals that are in there because that may affect employment , and we may choose for the lesser evil option of having employment and accepting the deficit, I don 't know. But certainly, we don't know what we're shooting at until we have this substantial differential explained by the research people . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not trying to put words in my friend's mouth or in the Opposition's. I am saying that there could be an honest difference between the two parties. That could be one.

What I said is that this government , the present government , feels in their ways - and this is not a remark or comparison with another party . They are saying that the wages of the people at the bottom of the ladder , especially , are important. They don 't want to save money and finance the health care of Manitobans on the backs of those people, rightly or wrongly. 700 Now they don't apologize . The governmen t hasn 't apologized for paying the wages they're paying to these people . My friend said the nurses are not involved.

The nurses are spend ing a good part of the mon ey in the hospitals, the biggest part. So if you 're going to look at that, I'm sure that you would have to do something with the nurses also. Now the situation is what I said. It might be that we have too many programs . We're talking about the teaching hospital, and that's what is being looked at at th is time . My honourable friend says, well you know, you 've got to cut down, you 've got to be efficient , but he seemed to criticize me because I'm saying no more deficit . I think it is crazy to allow the deficit that we've allowed .

In fact , they 're not all deficits. The middle column , as far as I'm concern ed, is not a true deficit. It was the way that we did and the Roblin Government did - well, not the Roblin . That was before that , but the Lyon Government certainly . Yes, we had hospitalization before, the Roblin government also . It was understood that we would look at the deficit and many of these things . How can you say it 's a deficit if it's something that's approved by the government , a contract for instance , a wage contract?

So now we're saying , no we want to cut down and you 're going to be efficient and you're going to force some of these things. By attrition, it might be the way to bring it in an orderly way that there would be less staff. They won't replace those people . They would cut down on staff . My friend said himself that they don 't want to put everybody out of work, and I believe that. So they might have to do the same thing not as fast . If you 're just looking at the functioning of the hospital , you might say, tomorrow we can get rid of these peopl e.

Maybe that's right , but we're not going to do that , and I'm sure that the Opposition would not do that. So the thing is what I said , that we're looking at the programs in the teaching hospital. We're looking at that with the university , with the hospitals . We are looking at that situat ion to see if we need , for instance , two teaching hospitals to see if we have too many programs . Earl ier today , I talked about the staff in the hospitals, the interns and the residents . It's the service, and maybe we're allowing too many of these tests and all that was mentioned today.

I agree with that , that 's what we're looking at. Now, I was looking for this . For each dollar it costs in the hospital, there is $0.75 to $0.80 on wages , of which approximately 76 percent is nursing costs . So it 's not just the people pushing a broom . MR. D. ORCHARD : A few general questions on Research and Planning, is Research and Planning responsible for the monitoring of how effective a program is? You've got in here your expected results. Now those aren't new this year because you've put out Supplementary Estimates. That's been part of the department for years.

In Research and Planning , do they monitor programs? I understand they don 't have enough staff to monitor all programs every year, but do they selectively monitor programs to determine how effectively they 're delivered ?

Monday, 6 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, they'r e doing that, and that is being done also with directors of different programs and the ADM administration is doing some of that also , as well as in the community, the ADM of Community Health. Lat er on, I will present a - what would I call this? - scheme or something where we're changing the program structure in the department also. That is being prepared by all three, by Community Health, by the Administration and the planners. Also, we've been fortunate in having the help of the professionals and the administrators of different hospitals and so on. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Okay, that involves monitoring the effectiveness, in other words , if you have a program like Hearing. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: That would be selected presumably at some point in time to assure that the target population is being adequately served . Now that gets you into the technical delivery of the program, i.e., of the people being served. Whose responsib ility is it to determine the financial efficiency of that delivery? Is that Research and Planning, or is that your internal audit or is that your . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I would say it's to the Cabinet because, as far as I'm concerned, I never think there is enough money and, as far as my staff is concerned , they never th ink that I'm giving them enough money and all down the line. I would think that you have to look at the overall. I mentioned, what if we kept on the way we're go ing now, what we should have? We're going to have approximately a 10 percent increase this year. That's a lot of money, but there is a limit. You were saying yourself awhile back that there is a limit , and I'm sure that some programs might suffer.

This is what we're trying to do, to cut down to make the institutions more efficient, because that's where the majority of the money is. There is $1 .2 billion for the Commission, which is mostly Medicare and institutions and Pharmacare and so on , and the rest of the department is the rest - $122 million compared to $1.2 billion . So I would say that, sure , we'll have recommendations from the staff, but I don't want to give the false information that they always get what they want. I can't hold them responsible if something goes wrong and if they haven't got the fund s.

Cabinet and myself have to accept the responsibility for that. MR. D. ORCHARD: The question I was attempting to get at , if the effectiveness of program delivery, whether it meets the target people. Presumably Planning and Research determines whether it's effective in reaching the target population that the program's designed for - hearing being an example , geron tology being another example, dental services being another example - but the example is irrelevant to the concept I'm trying to get at.

That tells you whether your target population is being adequately served, and presumably if it isn't, there 's going to be suggestions on how you either advertise 701 the program bett er or wh atever to make sure that the people who should avail themselves or could avail themselves of the service do so. My question is: Who determ ines whet her the program is delivered in an economic and efficient way? You've got a budget of $5 million in a department , as an example . Whose job is it to determine if the money is being spent effic iently and not being wasted? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: That would be under the Internal Audit of ad mini stration, the ADM of Admini stration. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now who's in charge of that? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Mayncird , he's the ADM of Administration, all the sections that we're looking at. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then let's get thi s one straight, because I want to know who I'm talking about. Then the ADM of Administration and Financial Services, is he also the ADM responsible for 1.(

b) through to 1.(h)? Is that the responsibilities, everything in this appropriation with the exception of the Minister 's Salary? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, he takes up at (e), (

g) and (h). MR. D. ORCHARD: Then is the DM director responsible for Executive Support , Research and Planning, and Communications? Who is responsible for this? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Executive Support is the Deputy Minister, yes; and Research and Planning reports to the Deputy Minister and to myself; and Communications, we've had a very small branch . We're trying to beef this thing up to sell the programs and to let the people know of the changes . So we've advertised for a communicator that we never had before, and they would report to the Deputy Ministe r at this tim e. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay.

Then in Financial Services , the ADM is responsible for carrying out the internal audits, presumably, for assuring that funds are spent responsibly . Is it the responsibility of the ADM , if he discove rs problems, is it up to him to remedy those problem s? Who remedies the problems? If there are problems in spending identified, who remedies the problems? Whose neck is on the line? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The spending, once it's been set by Cabinet and Treasury Board , would be the responsibility of the branch, of course, who will be instructed properly by the ADM of Administration.

The branch has to accept some responsibility . They should know what amount of money they have and so on, and the ADM will know the policy of government and direct ive of Treasury and so on and will pass on this information to all the directors . MR. D. ORCHARD: Internal Audit is a new line in the Estimates . It was presumably Manag ement and Analytical Services.

Monday, 6 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: There's been a change in titles, but it still is the same ADM. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. But do I determine correctly by the fact that you're now calling it Internal Audit, that this is an indication that you are responding to the recommendation in the Deeter Report which indicated that departments should have an internal audit capacity by which they can determine the efficiency of spending within the various branches of the department? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: The Deeter Report dealt only with the Manitoba Health Services Commission, and I should give you a bit of information now because you're quite concerned with that . Under every government there is a discussion: "Should we retain the Commission ; should we do away with the Commission?" That's done in every province , and again that question was asked.

It is a little different in Manitoba now because at one time when you first had the Commission there was such a thing as premiums , so you didn't compare it a bit to the Hydro or the Telephones and so on where they would get the government to okay the rates and that was it. It was the same thing with the Commission . When I started in the House, we never discussed anything about hospitals and hospitalization . It was one line and we dared not question anything; that was the Commission . That was the responsibility of the Commission.

But now, obviously, there 's no premiums there; so all the funds come from Treasury in the Department of Finance . So with these changes and with the restraint and so on, that came up again because it was felt that there should be some advantages to retain the Commission and some felt that it's time the Commission should go, and periodically, the same question about the AFM. So we asked Deeter to bring in a report and that's the report that you were talking about . Oh, you're talking about the tax. Oh, well , there's the Minister of Finance . That would be something you 'd have to ... MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr.

Chairman, like I'm not HON. L. DESJARDINS: That was in there before that. This internal audit was there way before the Deeter Report. This just came in shortly , just a few months ago. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now that we're on this topic, and we're caring and sharing tonight with the Minister and myself, is it possible that you would provide us with a copy of the Deeter Report which dealt with the amalgamation of MHSC and the Department of Health? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'll bring that to Cabinet. I can 't see, to be honest with you , any reason not to. I'll bring that when we look at the ...

I don't want to start a precedent . I don't think I've ever refused anything to this committee or the members of this House, but it might be at times that some are internal documents. I'll consider it and get back to you . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, just let me get the trail of financial accountability in order so that I understand the system . 702 The ADM of Administration and Financial Services is responsible then for the internal audit, presumably by program , within the department, and will presumably undertake that.

My first question is: Is an internal audit und ertaken on all sections of the department each year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, there 's a selection made and it would be only on certain selected programs . MR. D. ORCHARD: And, presumably, unless there were problems identified with a given section, it would be on a rotational basis; so over a two or three year period all sections of the department would have undergone an internal audit. Is that correct? HON. L. DESJARDINS: This is something that has worked .

There has been no, that I know of, because I haven 't participate d in that at all or selected, unless there would be a reason . Let's say there is something we suspect or there 's an accusation or we discover something , of course, that would be done, but selecting just at random, I've never had anything to do with that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, let 's theorize on a circumstance where a problem is discovered by Administration and Financial Services whilst they're doing an internal audit on a given program line , and they identify problems with the spending in that program.

Accountability is not there to their satisfaction or the rules of the game , if you will , are not being followed . Whose respons ibility is it then to make sure that those errors , tho se problems are corrected? Who has the responsibility? Is it the ADM of Finance? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's difficult to answer that without an example. I would say that the ADM would immediately notify the Deputy Minister. The director of that particular program with Administration would solve the problem. If not, in either case, they would notify the Deputy Minister, and in certain instances , I would be notified also . MR. D.

ORCHARD: So then the line of responsibility - just let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly . The line of responsibility, No. 1, for undertaking the internal audit is the ADM of Financial Services and Administration. If problems are encountered , it is the director of the department in which the problem is encountered, it's their responsibility to assure that problem is corrected? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's the first step , yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, what authority does the ADM and ultimately the Deputy Minister have in assuring that problems are cleaned up? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Well, if it's obvious, that's where it will be done , between the director and the department. If there's any question - and most of the time, if there's any doubt , this will be brought to the management. They have a management committee , staff has a management committee, chaired by the Deputy Minister . That would be discussed , and then a decision would be taken there.

Monday, 6 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chair man, I think that answers a lot of the questions. I would like to question the Minister just briefly on Communications. Now last year, you might recall , we had voted to elim inate this program beca use you didn 't have staff and we were very . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: No , it's that we had no communicator, as such. We had staff who are invo lved in that. I think we did . Well no, this year, we'r e getting staff in that depa rtment who were doing th at work in certain areas. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Well the reason I say -(lnterjection)- 1'11 just refresh the Minister 's memory bec ause last year, when we were into this, I asked him : " Can the Minister indicate whether there might be one," meaning a communicator , ". . . buried elsewhere in the Department of Health or the Manitoba Health Servic es Commis sion?" The Minister replied : " He or she is well buried because I haven 't found them ." Now, Mr. Chairman, we then moved to eliminate the funding , because there was no staff .

We had it eli minated and, through the goodness of our souls and because we didn't want to waste time, we allowed the vote to be reversed . Now I notice in the preparation of the Estimates Book that the Minister has got in Communications $24 ,000 in salary cost from last year. Now we never voted any salary cost last year, and that's the reason why we eliminated the program. In Communications in last year's Estimates, salaries were a blank, there were none. Now where did the $24,000 come from? Was that by Special Warrant or interline transfer? Where did the $24 ,000 come from? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: $24,000 was there last year, sure. Look on the left . MR. D. ORCHARD: No, that's your adjusted vote where you 've changed the figures. The prin t last year had zero salary . I can show you a copy of it if you lik e. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The explanation I have is that there were no staff, and that was moved during the year to provid e that amoun t for pamphlets and that kind of infor mation , and that it wasn 't staff . We had the sta ff year for a long tim e. MR. D. ORCHARD: No, you didn 't. Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify for the Minister because I remember this

section very well last year : (

a) there was no salary being requested; (

b) there was no SY, you had no staff . I made the point of asking you where your staff was . There wasn 't any and you answered that , if it' s buried, it was well buried because you weren't aware of it. Now you 're telling me that the $24,000 that you 've reallocated by the adjusted vote of $24 ,000 really wasn't for salary. It was for pamphle ts , etc. Well, that doesn 't state correctly the use of that money . It's not a major concern, but tha t does not give a factual presentation in the Estim ates of th e professional costs in the depart ment.

Are you sure you didn't have a half -staff slipped in from somewhere? Tha t was used for pamplets? How could you do that? 703 HON. L. DESJARD INS: The money was transf erred , but not from staff. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay now, let me und erstand thi s. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You see, we had no communicator. With the changes that are coming through, that's why we had that. Last year we knew that we would want one, and I'm telling you now that we have advertised for one and the intention is, as soon as we can get one , we will have a commun icator.

Cabinet felt and so on that the inform ation , and the departme nt felt that th ere's so much now to deal with the public and so on that information shoul d go forwa rd. Now the work th at was done , we coordinate, let's say, press releases and so on. We've worked with the Deputy Minister, the Director of Planning , the Secret ary of the Commission and so on , this work. That's the way the work was done , but we had no staff. We had som e people who work on that also who are in inform at ion, health promotion and so on , but there was no communicator at all last year.

But I inform the committe e that we have advertised , and the intention is to have one now. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well then , since there was no staff and since no salaried position was paid , why would the adjusted vote show that you paid salary of $24,000.00? Why wouldn't you simply move that $24 ,000 down int o Communications : Other Expenditures , because that doesn 't accurately reflect what's going on in this aspect of the department? I don't want to make a major issue of this, but theoretically this Supplement to the Estimates is supposed to tell us what went on during the year.

Now, if that's not a factual presentation in Communications , where it's a very small item , $24,000 - well, it's not a small item , but it's $24 ,000 - does that mean we have to ask every single line about Salaries , etc ., etc .? I think that would be not a very fruitful use of time . HON. L. DESJARDINS : Well, the best explanation I can give is that apparently is something that is acceptable. It was done in adjusted vote to try to identify for this coming year, this staff yea r, and then the money that we have to build in there for part of the year. MR. D. ORCHARD: But it doesn't reflect sala ry costs. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It doesn 't reflect salary cost s for last year at all. MR. D. ORCHARD: They say, and I'm not going to make a federal case out of it, or even a provincial case out of it, but it is very confusing where you've got the adjusted vote showing Salaries which wasn 't used for Salaries. That's an improper statement of the way the money has been spent . Now , a couple more questions . Has there been a study recently by Administration and Finance on the use of vehicles within a department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, there has been. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Have regional staff been advised that they have too many vehicles and som e of them are being pulled from regional staff?

Monday, 6 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: There are guidelines or rules set out by Government Services which will allow cars , providing there are so many kilometres , 20,000 , and we were advised by Government Services that som e of our cars weren't meeting that . That was discussed with them and we were informed that we returned so many cars - six cars were there? Six cars. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, it 's my understanding that the majority of those cars were out of the region. HON. L. DESJARDINS: They would be the ones that did not qualify because of not enough kilometres . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Can I ask the Minister, in view of the fact you've got 250 vehicles, I presume that would include your car, as the Minister, that would include ADMs ' cars as well? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I don't remember that . You're free to say "you presume." You don't presume that a damn bit; no, my car is not involved in that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh. Whose cars are involved in the 250 then? Is it the senior staff? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: My honourable friend knows that there are certain people who will get a car, including the members of Cabinet and so on, and then there are cars that are, either in the government's - many of them are pool cars and others assigned to an individual. I don't think that's changed so much since the days of government when the Conservatives were in power. They always had guidelines for cars and they felt that, if not, the people then could put in for an expense and use their own cars if they were using it.

By the way, I wouldn't mind the policy that I've got for Cabinet Ministers , if that's what you're suggesting . MR. D. ORCHARD: You're going to have a tough time when they get you your K-Car. HON. L. DESJARDINS: My what? Well, that might be why I want my own car. I don't know, the Minister of Finance and I will protect each other. MR. D. ORCHARD: I'm sure you will. Well, Mr. Chairman, I simply make the point that regional staff has, because of certain criteria - now we're saying that it's Government Services - lost a number of vehicles in Regional Services primarily in rural Manitoba where you have to drive.

The point was made, and I thought it was made rather well, that here they are trying to deliver services in rural Manitoba and they're having vehicles - not a great number of them - removed that were government cars. Their criticism was directed directly at the ADM who requested the vehicles be returned, that he wasn't visiting too many people in rural Manitoba delivering services, but yet his car remained. That may be an unfair criticism; it may not be, but that I simply point out to you, Mr.

Minister, was the feeling that was registered with me in terms of the decision to have these six cars removed primarily from Regional Services. 704 HON. L. DESJARDINS: I can understand that, Mr. Chairman , there could be that criticism, but I can assure you that it's not bad administration. It is the policy now and , if anything , it is the policy that - I'm not saying that it wasn't right, but the policy could be reviewed. The criticism , in other words , would be that the policy should not be to the ADM . MR. D. ORCHARD: That may well be, that was not the focus of the criticism.

It just seemed that the priority might not have been properly recognized as to who really needed the car. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Before we leave that, in all fairness to my ADM, I might say that he qualifies. I think the statement was made that the car wasn 't used for the service and I am informed that certainly he would qualify for the number of kilometres used in service . MR. D. ORCHARD: I thank the Minister for that answer. I will pass it on to the appropriate people. Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to take the time tonight to read these into the record, but could I receive the 45 agencies that are refe rred to on page 25 - "Effective coordination of 45 agencies receiving funding from the department." Could we receive a list of those 45 agencies and the size of the grants that are available? I don't need that tonight , in the process of the Estimates. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I asked for them, I might have it here. I got something at the last minute, I might have . I only have one copy, unfortunately . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, when we take a look at page 26, we have three areas of salaried personnel - Managerial , Professional/Technical, Administrat ive Support. There is no change in the numbers of staff, but I note, with some derision, that there 's - well, not derision, that's maybe too strong a word - but the professional and technical line of staff, their salaries have increased by over 14 percent year-over-year . Now, I have no way of determining from the breakout here whether ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: Would you mind repeating which line . . . MR . D. ORCHARD: Okay.

Page 26, under Administration and Financial Services, you've got professional and technical salaries. Managerial salaries are going up by about 3 percent , administrative support by about 3 percent, but you've got professio nal and technical salaries going up 14 percent. Now at a time when we've got hospitals being asked to cons train spending and we've got programs being tightened down on, how did we arrive at a 14 percent increase for these nine SY 's in the professional/technical part of Administration and Financial Services? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: The increase through reclassification was 21,500; the increments, 9,000; and GSI 13,800 for 44,300.00. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The Member for Pembina.

Monday, 6 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Which brings me to the question: Wha t is the GSI? What percent are you using for the GSI? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The general salary increase would be the yearly increase of the administration support in this case. MR. D. ORCHARD: What is the percentage figure that 's used? HON. L. DESJARDINS: 4.4 percent , 13 ,800.00. MR. D. ORCHARD: 4.4 . HON. L. DESJARDINS: And the reclassification , 21,500 or 6.8 increments, 9 for 2.9 percent. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, Mr. Chairman, is the 4.4 percent universally applied through all the Salary lines? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: No, it is below the average because the average for the GSI for all the people in Health is 8 percent. MR. D. ORCHARD: You're saying that the GSI in the Department of Health is 8 percent? HON. L. DESJARDINS : GSI plus increments is 8 percent. MR. D. ORCHARD: The average is 8 percent? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's 8 percent. That's the GSI with the increment, and I can give you more details if you want a little bit different category . MR. D. ORCHARD: That means that, throughout the department, there was an average 8 percent increase in the salary packages.

The only way it would be lowered is say, for inst ance , someone left and the new person who was replac ing them would have been a lower classif ied staff, hence starting at a lower salary. So anybody who was there year over year is going to average an 8 percent incr ease in salary, providing they weren't at the top of their increment range? HON. L.

DESJARDINS : I'll give you the - the administrative officer, the GSI was 4 percent, the increment 3.7 for 7.7; administrative officer , 3.9 and 3.8 for 7.7; systems analyst , 4.2 and 3.9 for 8.1; account ing clerk , 5.1 and 3.5 for 8.6; clerk , 5.6 and 3.3 for 8.9; administrative secretary , 4.8 and 3.5 equals 8.3; community health worker, 4.5 plus 3.3 for 7.8; dental assista nt, 5.3 and 3.5 for 8.8 ; nurse 4.3 and 3.6 for 7.9; ano ther classification of nurse, 3.9 and 3.7 for 7.6; finally the nurse, 3.9 and 3.4 for 7.3; planning and program analyst , 3.8 and 3.9 for 7.7; health and social development specialist , 4 .2 plus 3.7 for 7.9 ; health and social development specialist, 3.7 and 3.8 for 7.5; the ave rage , 4.4 and 3 .6 for 8 percent.

MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, my previous concept was that, on average, increments were equivalent to 705 roughly 2 percen t of a salary package . But it seem s from tho se figures you 've just given me that it's much closer to an average of 3.5 percent. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The GSI? MR. D. ORCHARD: No no, the increm ent. HON. L. DESJARDINS: 3.6. MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes. Now that mean s a O percent wage settlement is at 3 .6 percent , because you 've got increments averaging 3.6 percent. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The increments wer e always there. MR. D. ORCHARD: No, I realize the increments were always there. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Except the people who are at the maximum, of course, do not get any increase at all. MR. D. ORCHARD: Fine, I realize that. Mr. Chairman , that does take up a very sizable portion of the increase in the budget because presumably - maybe it's appropriate to ask the question now, rather than waiting for the Hospital and Personal Care Home lines. Do the salary packages in hospital s and budgets also reflect these averages in terms of increments and GSI? Is that a fair assumption? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm not going to take a stab at it until - I don't want to mislead you on it. I'll get that for you. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Cou ld you check that out for when we get to that line in the Estimates, because I'd be curious to know that? Mr. Chairman, another area that I want to briefly touch on is: Does the Administration and Financial Services Branch of the Department of Health do any independent monitoring of hospital budgets or personal care home budgets? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The department? No. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, and Planning and Resea rch doesn't do any monitoring of hospital budgets to see whether they are achieving efficiencie s? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes.

They would be looking at that , because the Planning and Research are there to serve both the department and the Commission . MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay , now presumably the Comm ission then has staff such as internal audit as we have here. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, they have staff in the Commission also who would look at th at. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, getting back to internal audits where we can deal directly with the Intern al Audit line

Mond ay, 6 April, 1987 here , expected results indicate, on page 29: "results and accomplishments for interna l audit are directly related to the completion of audi t assignmen ts as approved in the internal audit plan by the Departmen tal Audit Committee ." Who was on that comm ittee for the department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: This would be par t of the management committee, the Deputy Minister and ADM and staff of the department that is being audited . That is each ADM who is responsible for the program also. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Now it goes on to say in "Ex pected Results ," that your Internal Audit group are going to be reviewing all major areas of the department every five years , and has communicable disease control as one area for next year and mental health cent res, selected activ iti es. Now does this mean that Brandon and Selkirk will only have certain aspects of their operations audited? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's correct. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then the next question : Which regiona l operations are selected to be audited next year? Has that been done? HON. L. DESJARDINS : Those regions haven 't been selected as yet. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Okay. Mr. Chairman, when we compare this year to last in terms of staffing , we find that , despite a transfer of eight SY's to the Health Services Commission, we have an increase in the number of staff. Now the Minister has indicated in Communications , he 's already advertised and presumably interviewed for that position so that one will be filled. Now you've got four other vacancies beside that one. Is it the intention to fill those vacancies? HON. L.

DESJARDINS : If that's the question that was asked earlier, if we are satisfied that we need that staff to work with the reform and so on, yes, that could be done. I would hope we're that advanced that we can proceed . MR. D. ORCHARD : Mr. Poushinsky is still working on health reform, presumably , out of Executive Suppor t? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now you've got rather a unique slot in the organizational chart in that he is reporting presumably directly to yourself as Minister, as senior advisor in health reform .

Now , I notice these questions somewhat parallel the questions posed earlier , but does Mr. Poushinsky have access or has he the ability as senior advisor on health reform to ask of Research and Planning specific information that they will have to produce for him? Is that where he gets his resource backup? HON. L. DESJARDINS: There has been what we call an action committee that is meeting at least once a week. They 've had special duties , special work to get 706 ready, and he's been coordina ting tha t. If he wants any inform ation , he certainly has access .

That is a committee that is working very close together with the diff erent people in this community. In fact, anyone on that committee would have access to or cou ld get inform ation from any of the other members also . It was that kind of relation that we've had . MR. D. ORCHARD : That committee is made up of what individuals from you r senior staff? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Th e Minist er, the Deputy Minister, the Director of Planning and Researc h, the Assistant Executive Director of the Commissio n of the institutional side and also the ADM in charge of Community Health Services.

The secretary of the Commission acts as secret ary. The re are senior staff involved in the - and, as needed, other people would then be called in whe re we're looking at. For instance , Mr. McLean would be called in, if we're dealing with mental health, and Betty Havens on the quest ion of gerontology and so on . MR. D. ORCHARD: That's the end of questions for the time being , Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Chairman, going to Administration and Financial Services, how many of the staff in this line are MGEA staff? HON. L. DESJARDINS: What line is that? MRS . B.

MITCHELSON : Adminis trati on and Financial Services , page 26. Well, the manage rial wouldn 't be. The professional and technical are not MGEA? HON. L. DESJARDINS : They would be memb ers of the union? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Yes. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The professional and technical , the 9 and the 12 - I'm not going to say 12.26. I don 't know how .26 can join a unio n, but the administrative support. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: There are 21 in there , okay. I notice, under overtime, that there is $28 ,000 of ove rt ime by the se 21 staff . Can you giv e me a breakdown of how many staff there . . . HON. L.

DESJARDINS : No, I couldn't give you that , because that is secretarial staff and cler ical staf f. They also might be people who might be called in for a term. At Budget time , you 'll have extra people. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: So that goes in under overtime, people who are called in? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, the ove rtime would be only people who are on staff who are working overtime , especially during the preparation of the Budget or any

Monday, 6 April, 1987 other work like this where they are required to work overtime. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: It just appears to me, Mr. Chairman, it seems I've got a fair amount of overt ime pay in one year. The adjusted vote last year was 28,000 , and you are budgeting again for 30,000 in overtime. So that indicates to me that you 're planning to use people on an overtime basis again . Would it not make more sense to - first of all, what is the overtime rate? Is it time-and-a-half? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Might make more sense to what? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Let me ask you first , what is the rate of overtime paid? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It depends . MRS. B. MITCHELSON: According to the MGEA contract, would they not all be . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: It depends on the level of the individual concerned. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Chairman , what I'm getting at . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Approximately time-and-a-half. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: That's what I want to know. If you 're budgeting right now and saying that you're going to be spending $30 ,000 on overtime in this up and coming year, would it not make more sense to hire additional staff , pay them regular salary, and you 'd obviously be getting more value for your money? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: No, it certainly isn't obvious that this would be the thing to do . If you were establishing a perman ent position, if you can get people that could do the work; you're talking about people in the department , in a special capacity , who are spend ing extra time to prepare the budget and I can 't see any other short cut. You don't get people off the street and say, hey, are you going to work part-time on this, on something they don't know anything about. Then you'd have to pay holidays , you 'd have to pay pension and all kinds of things. I don't think you 're going to save money.

I think it's going to cost you more money and this is only during the real busy time that this will happen. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: So you're saying then that the full amount that you're budgeting basically for overtime is to prepa re the budget in this line and that's why it's . .. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's one of them, that's probably the main thing, and it could be that somebody prepared some of the work for changes . We've had many people working overtime in the area for some of the changes.

For instance, we had a secretary that worked all day yesterday - and I'm not talking about the senior personnel that have worked. 707 People that start something during thei r regular hours also might finish at the time and it certainly wouldn't be advisable though to say, okay, you're finished and get somebody else who knows nothing abo ut it. All this extra informa tion that we give you during the Estimates to make your job easier, and so on. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: It makes our job easier but we also do know then where the money is going. Mr.

Chairman , can the Minister tell me how many computers are currently in the various directorates in the department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm not laughing at the honourable member . I remember , just a few years ago , one of the members saying that we had 300 computers. We immediately started a search bec ause we didn't know where they were . I think we had one or two at the time, so anyway, what have we got now? Would you mind asking that question and other information system under the Commission? Part of it is to be transferred there and I want to give you a correct answer. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Part of it's transferred over there. Okay, I can save those questions for that time then. Under Human Resource Management and Personnel Management, can the Minister tell me where we're at with pay equity in the department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The pay equity would be better addressed under the Civil Service Commission who have that responsibility for the departments . That will be on line this year. We have no staff for that , no extra staff. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: So you can' t tell me where pay equity is at, or what stage it's at, or what's being done? I'll wait for ... HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I think it would be better asked and answered by the Civil Service Commission who could give you the final, because there is a Pay Equity Commission . . . MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Does that look after Health too? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh yes, Health is part of it. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Chairman , is there no one in this department then . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: There's nothing this year in pay equity as such, if the work is being done in the department . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr.

Chairman , I'd like to go back to Communications again, if we can, since we seem to have been jumping all over the place . The staff person that has been brought on stream to do Communications for this particular .. .

Monday, 6 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, that is being brought on stream, not yet. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: That has not yet been brought on, does the department foresee any specific project, I think for example of perhaps AIDS communication? Are there any projects like that or that are being anticipated for thi s particular individual? HON . L.

DESJARDINS: A communicator would coordinate all the resources or the areas providing this in the past, and would be responsible and deal through the Cabinet also, if ther e's any need to coordinate the service , and will be responsible for all communication, and also any preparing of speeches or anything like this ; especially in the area of the change that we might bring in to make sure that the proper information goes into the media and maybe through people in the rural area and people in different regions of the province , that we certainly will have to discuss those changes with .. . MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: In the no te s on page 24, indicating the staff year of 24,000, which we've already indicated didn't exactly exist last year, the increase is up to 40,000 with a note that this is required due to a reclassification of the position . What is anticipated that this individual might have that the former individual that didn 't exist , didn 't have? HON. L. DESJARDINS: First of all, he'll be visible , I would imagine, and he'll exist, I hope. If not, I'll apply for the job for $40 ,000.00.

No, it will be a qualified person that we want that will be able to direct all the Communications in this big department for health information and for changes and any changes in the system , and whatever. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr.

Chairman , the reason I asked about whether he or she would be concerned with any particular program is the expected results, which was the line which says, "Timely release of information regarding policy and program direction and the development of an overall communication strategy for Manitoba Health, which reflects government policy ." Is there some concern that the Health Department has not been communicating its objectives well? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I don 't know, I think we did . I think that it's mostly because of the changes that are coming up.

We feel that is very important for the people to know what it is. I said let's be very candid. I said to the people our concern, they have a program , a service that they like very much. We're talking about changing it and there's all kinds of rumours that can start so easily, so I think it is very important to inform the public as soon as possible . And then on any policy , somebody mentioned AIDS , smoking, and so on, that's what will be coordinated and done by that person . MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Like the Member for River East , I must admit to being somewhat concerned about the overtime at $30,000, and much more importantly, th e overall overtime of this particular

section of $43,500.00. I would really like to know why, with that kind of 708 overtime, serious consideration isn't given to hiring people . HON. L. DESJARDINS: The feel ing is that there are some people who are fami liar with the work and that have to put in more overtime. I think that in many cases you cou ldn 't do that. You couldn 't do it as well anyway, because you'd have to have people that would be working part time. I'm not saying that it' s impossible to say that maybe one or two more staff years wou ld do that.

I understand that's reviewed every year of course , but it's not the easiest thing to get new staff here, I can tell you that . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Last year when we discussed the Pay Equi ty Program , the Minister ind icated that the Department of Health was on line for this fisc al year and that hospitals were to be on line for - let me get it right - '88-89 , I guess . Is the Minister now saying that whole pay equity process is floundering and you don't have the Department of Health coming on stream this year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I remember discussing that last year.

I think what I said was that th is year some work would be done comparing the jobs and all that in different hospitals and so on, and I believe that is being done. But there's no money to say, well, these people have been assigned by the committee, whatever , and that is the salary that you will now have to pay because of pay equity. There is a committee looking at that at the Civil Service Commission . MR. D. ORCHARD: My recollection is, the sched uling as of last year when we questioned this Minister , was that the department was to be on line this year, this year's Estimates . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: To actually receive the change in the pay equity? MR. D. ORCHARD: That was the indication that your departmental salaries and expenditures on salaries would reflect the implementati on of pay equity in the department and that the hospita l lin es would be undertaken next year. I take it that that 's not on target then . HON. L. DESJARDINS: It might be that is what I felt was going to happen, but I can tell my honourable friend that the department has no control over that at all. It is the Civil Service Commission and the commit tee that is looking at it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, one final set of questions then . In terms of any time we reach the Salaries line , in terms of all of the departmental appropriations, if you 've got an average increment between the GSI, an average increase between the GSI and the increments that averages 8 percent, there are a number of areas which certainly don 't reflect that.

Monday, 6 April, 1987 Just in the last area that we talked about, where I was questioning professional technical receiving 14 percent increase , the managerial, I haven 't got the exact figure , but it might increase by about 3 percent . Does that reflec t - obviously , there 's no change in the manage rial staff, the two SY's are the same people , the same individuals , and let's use page 26 as an exact example . We have $112 ,000, and this is one of the ones where the adjusted vote does not differ from the printed vote in last year's Estimates - it's $734,400 .00. That's what was printed last year.

I'm presuming that, for instance, in managerial there was no change in those staff positions. They are the same individuals as last year, No. 1 assumption . HON. L. DESJARDINS: They're probably close to the maximum of their salary . MR. D. ORCHARD: Even if that were so, they would still receive anywhere from a 4 percent to a 5.6 percent GSI increase. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We've excluded senior officers on that average. MR. D. ORCHARD: So then senior officers are receiving less of an increment, I presume , less of an increase in GSI? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Percentagewise , yes. MR. D.

ORCHARD: So then as we go through these lines , then it would be anytime we hit a managerial line, we should not expect to see an 8 percent salary increase . HON. L. DESJARDINS: For instance, in that same case that you're talking about, one of them is managerial , the ADM . He's at the top; he has no place to go. They don't get any increment. MR. D. ORCHARD : What GSI percentage is applied to senior officers then? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's less than the 4 percent. MR. D.

ORCHARD: I' m sti ll having difficulty in determin ing how you go from $112 ,100 to $116 ,600, assuming that one of the SY's received no increment. Presumably the second one didn't receive any increment, and if they both received something less than 4 per cent, it still doesn't add up to the $116 ,000.00 . It should be something more. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that if it is the wish to pass this that we go ahead , only if it will be ready before the time that we adjourn , with the understanding that I'll bring as an example , in this Session, and bring the deta ils.

I'll bring the details for the two manager ials, the non-professionals and the 12.6 of administrative support , all the details tomorrow or the next time . MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay. That would be important because as I am going through the Estimates I always 709 do my percentage increases year-over -year. With an 8 percent target now for particularly lower paid salaries HON. L. DESJARDINS: We'll bring you all the details, not neces sarily the name of the individual , but by individual. MR. D.

ORCHARD: No, I'm not interested in the names of the individuals attached or anything , but , you see, the point I'm going to make with the Minister on this is that Estimates are presumably a best possible guess and presentation of what you're going expend, not perfect. It isn 't going to be right on to the dime , but as was explained here in your opening remarks, table 7, you had to adjust for some $13.3 million. Well, let's just use Winnipeg hospitals and Brandon . You had to provide another $11. 7 million to take care of normal cost increase in contract settlements . Mr.

Chairman, the point I want to make is that when we go through the Salaries line if, for instance , at Administrative Support, which if I read Hansard tomorrow and find which areas received the larger increments , GSI plus the increment , you find that those ranged above the 8 percent. HON. L. DESJARDINS: There's only one thing , you know, and I think we suggested that could be asked again when we go to the Manitoba Health Services Commission. This does not deal with the Health Services Commission. MR. D.

ORCHARD: I appreciate that, but what I'm getting at is that if there is presumably an average of 8 percent, particularly at your administrative support levels, the only reason it wouldn't be that is if you had replaced staff mid-year and they came in at a lower increment, a lower classification, otherwise it should average out that there's approximately an 8 percent increase in Salaries, or else the estimate is understated, and if the estimate is understated , then the budgetary requirements of the government are understated and the deficit is understated . That's where I'm going ; that's where I'm questioning.

HON. L. DESJARDINS: You're talking about the hospitals? MR. D. ORCHARD: No, no, I'm talking about departmental. I'm talking about departmental. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You're saying that the deficit is understated. MR. D. ORCHARD: I make the scenerio with you that if the salary estimates that are presented to us now don't reflect an 8 percent increase on average at the lower wage levels within the Civil Service, because that's approximately the average you've given me here doesn't reflect that, the only reason it wouldn't is if you had replacement staff hired at a lower incremental level or a lower salary start. HON.

L. DESJARDINS: Some people are at the maximum also if you 're talking about an increase. This

Monday, 6 April, 1987 is the average of the whole depart ment for that level of employment. MR. D. ORCHARD: But the point I make is that if the salary requests as presented in the Estimates did not reflect exactly or close to exactly . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Why don't we go and give you the information tomorrow and maybe throw more light on it. MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . the point being that you could have your salaries understated, and if that's the case they would be made up in the adjusted vote next year, and the deficit as projected by the Mini ster of Finance a month ago would be understated . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: There are times that before there has been an agreement, that we in fact most of the years didn't put an increase and so on and especiall y make it public. At times we've put in a certain amount knowing that it might be more because we don't know, and even if it was the only amount that we had, then if we made that public before there is any discussion or any agreement on the contract, that's not going to be proper negot iating. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's correct, except I believe we're fixed into a contract right now. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, but we were talking in general. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Not for 1988-89? Your contract is good until September 30.- (Interjection)- Yes, you've got a half-year reflection in here . Mr. Chairman, that concludes most of the questions I have on this section. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: I'd like to ask a question or two, Mr. Chairman. Can the Minister tell me whether there are any standards, any criteria in place to measure the manpower requirements within the department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: What do you want me to measure? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: A measurement of job evaluation.

What criteria is in place to measure manpower requirements within the department othe r than a request by a certain directorate to hire staff? HON. L. DESJARDINS: You look at the work that has to be done ... MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Is there job evaluation being done? HON. L. DESJARDINS: . . . and the staff that you presently have and then there is evaluation of the jobs every year. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: So there are some standards to monitor the requirements and whether we in fact have too many staff within the department or not enough . You have some control then over that besides the department's request?

Is there any other evaluation done? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, of course, that also then, we have to go to Treasury normally who will evaluate again, look at the impact and so on, and at Estimate time the Cabinet as a whole will look at the amount of money that they will have and all that will be taken into consideration and priorized as per job as per department. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Has it ever been studied to see whether you might have too much staff within the department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'd never admit that, especially with the Ministe r of Finance sitting so close. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: That's all for right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Was it the committee's wish to pass that

section now? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Pass. MR. D. ORCHARD: You can't pass it. It's with exception of the Minister's Salary. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we understand that. 710 The hour now being ten o'clock, our regu lar time of adjournment , committee will rise. Committee rise. SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We have been co nsidering Item No. 1.(b)

(1) Administration and Finance, Executive Support, Salaries , 1.(b)

(2) Other Expenditures, 1.(b)

(3) Policy Studies. The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: This afternoon as we discussed the sugar beet issue, I was glad to hear the Minister identify that he worships John Diefenbaker, maybe he's seen the light a little bit. As the evening progresses, I hope he will start to see some more light. Sugar beets to me represents a very important diversification industry. This province needs diversification, I'm sure we all recognize it, and I would like the Minister to indicate whether he has any desire to see the industry survive in Manitoba.

Throughout the course of the discussion this afternoon, at no time did he give us any indication that he wanted to see the industry survive. There were a lot of political answers, a lot of reasons and excuses as to why he's taken the position he's at, but never any ind ication the industry should survive. Is he prepared to let it go to Alberta? Is that where he wants to see the sugar beet industry concentrate in Canada?

Monday, 6 April, 1987 With the kind of acres we have in Southern Manitoba, to me it's a great crop to increase the acres of, not allow them to go down to zero. We only produce 10 percent of the production in this country that's consu med in this country . Surely , we can at least incre ase the acres 50 percent , mayb e 100 percent over a few years with a proper stabilization program in place . The acres are there. If those acres, Mr. Chairman, come out of sugar beet production, what will they go into? They will go into rape, barley , wheat - the crops we already have surpluses of.

In terms of the entire western Canadian picture , high produc ing acres under that kind of climate should be out of the cereal crop production and into something else. Here we're going in the reverse direction . I would like to hear a clear statement from the Minister as to whether he wants the industry to survive or not. That's from a farmer's point of view. Now let's look at the industry from a Winnipeg or an average Manitoba citizen point of view. What is the value of that indust ry to the Province of Man itoba?

My understanding is it is approximately 15, 17 million at the farm gate, and up to about $90 million total industry in this province , in terms of the economic activity it creates . The Ministe r said 40 permanent jobs this afternoon. I challenge him . The plant says it's 100 permanent jobs, and over 200 temporary jobs - those are direct jobs. What about all the transportation jobs of hauling the sugar beets? What about the jobs of the industries that supply goods and services to the plant and to the industry at large?

What is the total economic loss to this province of letting this industry collapse, which seems to be what the Minister would like to see happen? Has the government, as a whole , looked at what the loss would be in revenue, in sales tax , payroll tax, income tax, all the various revenues they collect? Is the Minister prepared to stand up and say the industry can be allowed to go from this province and lose its economic activity? MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman , I think my honourable friend - I will repeat again what I did before we rose at six o'clock, as to what any reasonable Manitoban would, how they would view the response of this government to an industry that has historically , and I say hist orically , because I did refer to John Diefenbaker back to 1958. Mr. Chairman, from 1958 to 1985 sugar beet production in Canada was supported through the Ag ricultural Stabilization Act that was passed by the Diefenbaker administration. Mr.

Cha irman , through successive Conservative and Liberal administrations , was that support there when the market prices fell below the historical price received by the producers in relationship to the market? Mr. Chai rman, in 1984, actually for 1985, in the fall of 1985 , the Mulroney Government decided to end that relationsh ip. They indicated that there won't be a sugar bee t industry in this country unless provincial governments decided to contribute financially to that industry.

And unilaterally they made an announcement within two weeks before seeding that the industry would not 711 continue in this provinc e or in any other province without provincial financial support after having , from 1958 to the 1985 crop year, fed eral support. They neglected to pay forward the'83 and'84 stabilization payments and to this day they have not allowed those stabilization payments to be made. Mr.

Chairman , during our negotia ti ons with the Federal Government, and I will repeat again, this province did put up $3 million to save that industry in the Province of Manitoba on the condition that there will be no further financial contribution required from 1985 crop onward , and that there would be a national sugar sweetener policy provided in this country. That agreement was sanctioned by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board; your M.P., your Member of Parliament, signed that agreement , sent a telex confirming that agreement.

They did not bring into place a sugar sweetener policy as they committed in 1985, so they decided to carry on that special arrangement, or a different arrangement for 1986. Mr. Chairman , for 1987 they unilaterally announced a so -ca lled tripartite scheme indicating all that's available is tripartite . Mr. Chairman , we responded saying that notwithstanding our agreement with the Federal Government we are again prepared to put in excess of $3 million over the 10-year period, but we will not share in any of the deficits of the fund , neither will we go into a tripartite agreement that was unilaterally imposed.

So let the record be clear as to who is sincere and who isn't sincere about the industry. Who has lived up to their commitment and who hasn 't? Mr. Chairman , we have lived up to our commitments. It is the Federal Government that is unilaterally trying to impose a change in venue in this industry while on the other hand making use of that same legislation that they say now is not available for sugar beets for othe r commodities in this country, namely, apples. Mr. Chairman , $12 .5 million.

On March 17 - not 1984 but 1987 - Agriculture Minister John Wise today announced that apple growers in British Columbia, Ontario , Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will receive $12.5 million in stabilization payments for their 1983 and'84 apple crops. Mr. Chairman, those members should be so embarrassed about the actions of their federal counterparts that there is money for every other commodity in this country but there is no support from the Federal Government for sugar beets other than some ill-conceived tripartite scheme which the producers don't want. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman , the producers don't want that. Ask them. They want stabilization or a national sugar sweetener policy. Mr. Chairman, the producers as well are operating with a gun to their head . Obviously, with no other choice in the matter, they are saying, well we want something, but we're not prepared to do that . We are not prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman, for the simple reason that, if they can do that for other commodities not named in the act, they can sure do that for sugar beets. MR. G. FINDLAY: Mr. Minister , we're not talking about apples here, we're talking about sugar beets. We're

Monday, 6 April, 1987 talking about a $90 million industry and several hundred jobs . When CFI was talking about 100 jobs, you guys created a great tirade . Here we're talking 400 or 500 jobs . We've got employees out there being told by the farmers that there is no job unless there is a sugar beet indust ry, and this Minister still will not answe r the question whethe r he's happy to see the sugar beet industry closing its doors , because he knows, if there are no crops sowed this year and the plant is not operating this year, it's closed for good.

He knows that, the sugar beet growers know that, and they know that tripartite is the only solution they've got, and this Minister will not act . He is not acting . HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, finally the Conservative party has admitted that the producers don't have another choice. They don't have another choice , Mr. Chairman , because of their colleagues in Ottawa . They stand in this House and they defend the actions of Members of Parliament, his M.P., the Minister of Health, and they stand here and defend their actions. Mr.

Chairman, their Members of Parliament hold a gun to their producers' heads and these members come here and defend them . Mr. Chairman, it's outrageous to have a bunch of Conservatives here defend the actions of their colleagues. At least now they have admitted, at least they 've now come to this House and have admitted that their colleagues gave the producers no choice . They didn't give them a national sugar sweetener policy.

They didn't live up to their agreement that there would be no further financial contribution to Manitoba, but they are prepared to allow the costing of a program that was normally borne nationally 100 percent by the Canadian taxpayer through Ottawa , and to say that now it's only going to be 33 percent from Ottawa and 66 percent from Manitoba . Mr. Chairman, that's how they stand up for Manitoba . That's how they're standing up for Manitoba farmers and Manitoba agriculture - disgraceful! Mr. Chairman, I repeat my words from before .

They should be demanding the resignation of his M.P. for the despicable and clearly insensitive record on behalf of the sugar beet company. Mr. Chairman , if we were not concerned about the sugar beet industry, we'd have said that we have an agreement. We have an agreement with Ottawa that says no more money. That was the agreement on black and white.

Nothwithstanding that, my colleagues have said, look , we know that we want to protect the jobs in the industry and the impact on the Manitoba economy, and we will put in place again in excess of $3 million, notwithstanding the agreement that we have from their own government, from their own brothers in Ottawa. They are saying go even further. I raised the question, Mr. Chairman , earlier. No one answered it. Do you trust Charlie Mayer? Would you trust Charlie Mayer if he gave you such an agreement? Nobody said anything. Nobody defended Charlie Mayer here. MR. G. FINDLAY: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture says he has an agreement , a signed agreement. To me, an agreement must be signed by more than one party. Has the Minister of Agriculture got his signature on that agreement that he's talking about yet? 712 HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, are members opposite saying that - clearly, are they saying that the word of Charlie Mayer on a telex is worth nothing? Is that what he's saying? Mr. Cha irman , I believe the honourable member should clari fy his statement, because that's obviously what he's saying. MR. G. FINDLAY: Mr.

Chairman, I get a little disturbed when a Minister is standing up and saying the Federal Government, 33 percent, and the Provincial Government, 67 percent. Let's get at the facts of this agreement now. Let's look at the facts of this agreement. That is the levy to be paid at the rate of 3 percent per year . Mr. Min ister, is it not correct that you pay only the levy annually for a period of 10 years, and the stabilization that's to be paid during the course of that 10 years is paid entirely by the Federal Government, and you're liable only for the deficit at the end of the 10 years?

You've got no additional commitment annually but the $300 ,000, the 3 percent levy. At the end of the 10 years , if it's not actuarially sound , then you may have a deficit to pay. But, Mr. Minister, is there not a committee struck of six people , one from each province, two from the Federal Government , two from the producers, whose job it is to assess this ongoing program , to adjust the levies, to adjust the stabilization payment, to guarantee that by the end of the 10 years it is actuarially sound. If it is actuarially sound, Mr.

Minister, you've got no liability other than the 3 percent stabilization payment per year. So therefore , you have no argument not to sign this agreement. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , the real question in this debate -(Interjec tion)- Mr. Chairman , obviously I think the Member for La Verendrye who was provided a copy of the draft agreeme nt that was prepared - and he asked me for it and I believe our staff provided it for him - should in fact give a copy of that agreement to my honourable friend from Virden .

He might be able to look at what the terms of that agreement are, so that he doesn't get himself mixed up on what is, in fact, provided by that agreement. But clearly, Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a case of the Manitoba Conservatives attempting to extricate their federal counterparts from a hole that they can - I want this debate to continue because, the long er it continues , the clearer it will become as to who is whose puppet. Who pulls the strings, and who says how high we jump . Mr. Chairman , that's really the issue in terms of this group in this Chamber . The question of fairness on this issue , Mr.

Chairman, we have a national dairy policy which is supported by the Federal Government 100 percent. Just about 80 percent of the national dairy policy quota is east of the Manitoba -Ontario border, 100 percent federally funded. What is it? $300 million a year, no request for tripartite, none whatsoever , Mr. Chairman, announced a five-year policy. Long after that amendment in the legislation was passe d, it was announced, there was no call for tripartite . Now we have again another example; we have apples, an unnamed commodity, under the act. In 1987 , what are we doing?

We're making payments for 1983 and 1984, Mr. Chairman. We are now going to be making

Monday, 6 April, 1987 payments, and these gentlemen opposite , and ladies, want to sit here with their blinkers on. They want to be embarrassed and they are embarrassed by their federal counterparts , and they don 't know what to do with it. They should do like Mr. Kilgour from Calgary and threaten to resign, Mr. Chairman . Either that, Mr. Chairman, or call for the resignation of their Member of Parliament. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for La Verendrye . MR. H. PANKRATZ: Well, Mr. Chairman , I would also like to make a few comments in regard to what the Minister just indicated .

What my colleague, the critic for Agriculture , just stated - and the Minister was actually objecting to that - I would sort of indicate that the Minister of Agriculture should read the agreement , because I believe he is not informed , as that is exactly what it states , that there is going to be a member from each province, plus a grower from each province. A MEMBER: So what! MR. H.

PANKRATZ: Well, that's what the agriculture critic was stating, and my question that I would like to pose to the Minister of Agriculture is, did he not , in 1985, sign this agreement?! have yet to hear him state that he signed it, this agreement, stating that they would go into a provincial agreement responsible for agriculture, as agreed to by all Agriculture Ministers. And was our Minister one of them? I want him to state he has signed that because ii he goes back to the'85 agreement , Mr.

Chairman , then I want to ask him if the Minister of Finance , like now in his Budget, indicated in regard to Hydro, that it was a one-time increase , 4.6 percent in Hydro . Does that mean that Hydro will never in history again ever have an increase? Is that what you're referring to? This is what you are trying to tell us in one sense , Mr. Minister, when you are going back to that agreement with what Charlie Mayer indicated to you . I think it is totally unjust for you to relate to that constantly after what you agreed to with them with the rest of the nine provinces, that you would work out an agreement.

And where do you see us as growers in the Province of Manitoba to go but to the Provincial Government? You want us to go to the Federal Government. I don't for one minute deny that possibly the Federal Government shouldn't go to this sugar policy , but when you break down what that sugar policy should do, it should just do a study . That's all that was meant to do. And if you would consen t to in some way keep this industry open today, maybe that sugar policy would work out for the future, but at the present time it seems to be allowing the whole thing to falter.

I'll tell you what one person indicated to me today , Mr. Minister, and I want you to realize this . He went to a Safeway store and he wanted to buy a turkey - Mr. Minister, I wish that you would listen - and that turkey should cost $40, and he went across the line to the United States and he bought a turkey for $16 in Canadian funds. Now, when you want to look at that -(Interjection)- That's right. And I think , Mr. Minister, you have to look at this from all aspects of it.

It 's not that the sugar industry today cannot compete on the 713 world market ; it's that the sugar industry can't accept the dumping that's going on from differe nt countries . And I think, Mr. Minister, you should explain that in detail whether you are going to allow this to go down. When you indicated before , Mr. Minister, whether we would trust Charlie Mayer more than you, I think there would be no question about it. I think there is no question in our mind on this side of the House , Mr. Minister.

But I still believe that we, as the Opposition here today , still have some faith and some confidence in you and also your colleague beside you. The colleague beside you should never open his mouth. He put this country in a defic it position that you should be ashamed of as having been the Finance Minister. You should be the last one to advise the Minister of Agriculture on one thing in this House. You should be ashamed of that -(Interjection)- sure, that's right, like you were playing cards before . That's what it amounts to.

But I still believe that , when all the facts have been put on the table , and I believe our Minister of Agriculture is not that naive because we, on this side of the table, look at what it will do for Manitoba . I'm not defending the Federal Government. I stated that to the Minister last year, and I'll repeat that today again. I'm not here to defend Charlie Mayer or Jake Epp or the Federal Government. I'm here to try and see that we keep this industry , which I'm a member of or a part of, which is basically an $80 million industry, for the Province of Manitoba. I would like to question the Minister .

When he can throw $13 million at the hog industry - he was going to check those figures, and maybe he can get back with them now. The Manitoba Sugar Company has 100 full-time employees with an average salary of $14 dollars an hour. That's nothing to sneeze about. Those hundred people , I'm sure they have families and homes and everything to look after . You know, ii you want to be so generous , why don 't you donate half of your wages if you want to be that generous? Then you break it down into the industry , the growers plus the equipme nt dealers .

I think this Minister has a responsibility, he has a great responsibility to the Province of Manitoba which he's been elected to . I think , in all fairness, he needs to explain that national sugar policy which you 've been work ing on . Yes, you said that natio nal sugar policy should be the one which should increase the price so as growers we could all - but remember , all that the national sugar policy will do is just doing a study , but I think you have to be aware of that . When they are through in 60 days - it has been exten ded, which you are aware of. I don 't think we should try to update you, okay?

So those 60 days that that sugar policy study has been extended, all they 'll come back with are recommendations. That 's all.- (Interjection)- No, that isn 't enough . That is not enough, and I would ask the Minister that he should indicate to us where he wants to leave 28,000 acres of land in agriculture . You have all kinds of educational classes that you were proposing before as part of your Budget.

I think you should come up with a clear indication of what 28,000 acres should be seeded into and whereby anybody would be able to have a cost-plus factor like, I don 't have to mention it again , what you're part of. I will never be able to rel ieve you from it as long as - and I believe very strongly, like my colleague indicated , that it can be a conflict of interest.

Monday, 6 April, 1987 On one hand , the Minister himself is a part of something of that nature . On the other hand, he's got at his control something that there are about 400 growers, plus 200 employees who are waiting for this Minister to respond to. I think it's very unfair. I have a copy of the agreement here before me and , you know yourself, you have an option after three years.

At the same time, there's a six-man board like my colleague already indicated, which shall be reviewed on an annual basis , that there shall never be how you have been trying to mislead this House , that there shall be a $5 million deficit after two years or three years . If the six-man board is going to live up to its responsibility as board members , it shall be readjusted on an annual basis. So I would wish that the Minister of Agriculture now would take a little bit of time and explain to everybody in this House how he misconceived to this House how he'd have a loss of $5 million .

I wish he would indicate to us with that board how that still is possible to happen . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Trade and Industry. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I've been listening for some time with increasing amazement to the comments of the Opposition members of this House with respect to sugar beets. I am shocked that the member would get up here and suggest that there is an agreement in effect that we are violating when in fact he knows, and every single sugar beet producer in this province knows, that there was an agreement entered into in 1985.

The agreement was for one year, and the agreement was very specifically for one year only - only. It was a one­ time-only arrangement. There was a commitment by Charlie Mayer , the man you trust, who said : " The government will not require any further financial participation by the Manitoba Government beyond the 1985 crop year," - very, very clear . Those of you who were here then - and the Member for Morris was here and you were here and so on. We were saying, we're not getting into a program, another one that the feds are going to offload on us under any circumstances whatsoever . We will not do it. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman , on a point of order . MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order, the member will state his point of order . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, when he refers to you were here , who is he referring to when he makes that comment? He makes some mention of the Member for Morris . Who else was that he was referring to? MR. CHAIRMAN: The member very well knows that's not a point of order. It's a point of clarification more. HON. V. SCHROEDER: On a point of clarification, I was looking at the Member for Arthur. He was here at the time.

It was very clear that we were putting nothing in unless the Federal Government contracted with us that we would not be involved in this thing after'85, because they were going to have a national sweetener 714 policy . That was when they were going to have the national sweetener policy . So what happened? Two years later, they come back and they say, the good old days of John Diefenbaker are gone for Manitoba, they're gone. You're going to cont ri bute and the farmers in Manitoba are going to contr ibute, and we're going to go down from 100 percent fund ing to 33 percent funding.

We think that's fair, is what Brian Mulroney is telling you , and you are being like a bunch of sheep, quiet and say, well that's fine with us then. It's okay that Quebec and Ontar io apple growers get 100 perc ent from the Federal Government going back to 1983 and 1984 and so on, 100 percent, because after all they're from Central Canada and they deserve it. It's okay that eastern growers get 100 percent on soybeans , and your constituents are supposed to go down to 33 percent on sugar beets.

It's okay that eastern farmers get 100 percent on federal contribution on wheat, but here we're going to change it from the historic 100 percent for sugar beets down to one-third . I want to tell you something about how you can help us to stop this nonsense . Stand up for Manitoba. Do something in the way that your Alberta counterparts did. Take a look at what they did to save the oil industry .

After they got a $1 billion decrease in taxation for oil a couple of years ago, after they got the deregulation they asked for - that's $2 billion - after they got those tax decreases , specifically at their industry , they came along this year and said that's not good enough . If you don 't do something about it, we're considering changing parties . We're considering changing the nam e of our party, getting away from you people because you're no different than Trudeau .

Incidentally, I want to say that Trudeau was far bett er to the sugar beet farmer of Manitoba than Brian Mulroney and Charlie Mayer and Jake Epp, who are the people who are cutting down from bad old Trudeau at 100 percent down to good old Brian at 33 percent. If you people took the courageous stand that you ought to take and say, this is wrong. This is not fair in a country like this where they are giving 350 million to the oil industry in Alberta, where they are giving the CF-18 to Queb ec, where they are giving apples to Ontario, Quebec , B.C . and so on .

In Manitoba , we're supposed to take the lumps in terms of this sugar policy. I think you people should be considering. Look in the mirror as you're looking how this industr y is going down the tubes . It is going down the tubes as a resu lt of your silence . You have not once in public stood up and said , we believe it's not fair for the Federal Government to take this bur den and dump it onto the shoulders of the farmers of Manitoba, one-third of it to the farmers of Manit oba and one-third of it to the other taxpayers of Manitoba. That's not fair.

In other province s, your own party is standing up for the rights of their taxpayers. You people are like a bunch of sheep. You're sittin g back saying nothing, except you 're always attacking the Provi ncial Governm ent. At the same time , you stand up and yap about the deficits, deficits incidentally which are lower than Tory deficits to the west of us . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, isn 't that funny . You want them that high? You want $1.2 billion as Saskat chewan

Monday, 6 April, 1987 has this year? You think that's great -(Interjection)- and you say, what's a billion? The Member for Roblin-Russell just said, " What's a billion?" It's taken 30 years since C.D. Howe said, " What's a million?" to get the Member for Roblin-Russell to say, "What's a billion ?" MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin-Rus sell wants to join debate. MR. L. DERKACH: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Minister of IT and T wash his ears out and listen to what's being said rather than construe something in his imagination and then spew it out. MR. CHAIRMAN: That 's a point of clarification again .

HON. V. SCHROEDER: If that was a clarification by C.D., then that's fine, but he did say, " What 's a billion?" Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that members opposite, no more than anyone else , can have it both ways. You can 't say at the same time, you 're spending too much, while you 're standing at the same speech and telling us we ought to be spending more money . We ough t to again be offloading from the federal shoulders. I think this is an interesting debate . I ask the members as they stand up over the next few hours as we debate sugar to address the issue of the fairness. Answer the question .

The Member for Rhineland, tell us. Is it fair that this is happening in Alberta with the oil industry 100 percent and in Manitoba they said one-third? Is it fair, the Member for Emerson, that we are into a position where, in Quebec, they get 100 percent on soybeans? Here, we're getting down to one-third on sugar beets? Is it fair that the wheat payments in the east are staying at 100 percent and here we're down to one-third? Are those things fair? Address those issues. If it is not fair, then don 't you think it's about time you stood up for Manitoba? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for La Verendrye. MR. H.

PANKRATZ: Thank you, Mr. Ch airman. I don't think that we need to even respond to those last few minutes of comments from that Minister, but I would like to go back to the Minister of Agriculture. I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a specific question. How much in dollars can Manitoba export sugar if we would go into this tripartite stabilization? Mr. Chairman, I wish he wouldn 't have to ask 10 people before he responds, because I'd like to know what he knows about this agreement. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I know that there are discussions going on about those export permits.

In fact, they are having discussions, I was advised today, about trading some of them off. Well, Mr. Chairman, that whole question in my mind is irrelevant to the basic debate of the sugar indust ry and national sugar sweetener policy. Mr.

Chairman , just for my honourable friend ' s information, we gave the Federal Government an out, because if in fact he is as honest and as concerned about the industry as he purports to be - the Member for La Verendrye , Sir - he would have indicated that 715 why not continue the relationship that they had in 1986 in through 1987 to have that national sugar sweetener policy in place that his own colleagues promised in 1985 and didn 't deliver on either? MR. H. PANKRATZ: Mr. Chairman , to the Minister of Agriculture.

I'm not going to argue that point with him at all, because if he could negotiate that with the Federal Government, we , as growers , would by all means and anybody on this side of the House would totally go along with that agreement. But we're not in a position to negotiate . It's that Minister of Agriculture and only him that has that power in his hands.

But it's obvious today , right now, that he doesn 't even know the amount of export sugar that is available through this agreement to the Province of Manitoba , but I think, with that in mind , the people of this province ought to know that this Minister isn't even knowing what this tripartite agreement consists of. I would wish that he would expand a little bit more on that. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , I understand that those quotas have been cut this year. There is no longer the open-door policy that we 've had with the United States. But, Mr.

Chairman, I think members opposite are in fact hiding under their chairs in an endeavour to defend their colleagues . Mr. Chairman, they are doing a disservice to their constituents and to provincial Con