MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Health Care System
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that under Rule 27 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss the matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to the health care system posed by this government.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for The Maples that under Rule 27 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to the health care system posed by this government.
Under subrule 31(2), I would remind all members that the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.
Also, as stated in Beauchesne Citation 390, “urgency” in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of their motion, and I would request that members focus their comments exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would like to demonstrate to this Chamber that the urgency is, in fact, there and warranted.
Given that today, in itself, is the budget, we have to recognize the impact that this government has had on the lives of all Manitobans and the anxiety that it has created through individuals who receive home care services, through consumers of our other forms of health care delivery modes.
Madam Speaker, we have health care professionals who do not know where this government is taking us. There is a tremendous amount of stress that is being put on health care workers today because of the indecision of this government. We have a lot of uncertainty that is out there.
We passed a resolution, Madam Speaker, about two years ago inside this Chamber which had all-party support which in essence said that we believe, as elected officials, in the five fundamental principles of health care. Well, what is causing that anxiety is that the government’s actions, the policy of this government is threatening those principles. You can look at it in terms of accessibility, for example, and talk about the community hospitals and what this government is doing with the Seven Oaks and Misericordia hospitals.
You can talk in terms of universality and talk about the home care services and the impact that this government is going to have on that aspect as a direct result of this government’s policy decision.
You can talk about the whole idea of affordability when we start looking at the Pharmacare program, Madam Speaker. We ultimately believe that this government does not have the vision that is necessary, and it would be well worth the time of this Chamber to spend the day talking about health care and what is happening today in the province of Manitoba regarding health care.
The Budget Debate, Madam Speaker, is a wide spectrum of debate, and we have a limitation in terms of time, and there are many different issues that this government is addressing through the Budget Debate.
What we are saying is that health care is going to be in all likelihood the issue that is going to be predominant and coming in virtually on a daily basis. We believe that this government has got to be held accountable for the actions that it is taking regarding health care because it is threatening a resolution that passed inside this Chamber which had all-party support.
For that reason, we believe that we should be debating this very important, critical issue today.
If the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is sincere when he says he wants to put the patients first, Madam Speaker, I concur. The Liberal Party agrees. Let us put the patients first. Let us have this debate and then go on.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to make presentation.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster, despite your advice that he should confine his remarks to the matter of urgency of debate, I think may have touched on it once during his discourse, but the fact of the matter is that there is no urgency for debate.
Despite the concerns or seriousness of the issue, the fact remains that for the next eight days, we will debate ad nauseam, no doubt, Madam Speaker, every issue that every member of the House wants to bring up, and if the member for Inkster and his colleagues and anybody else in the House wishes to bring up an issue related to health care or any portion thereof, they are more than willing to do so for a period of, depending upon what happens later today, either 30 or 40 minutes.
But the fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, there is no urgency for debate. The member has not made a case for that urgency of debate, and there is ample opportunity in the next eight days.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I am rising on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and I would like to indicate that we will be supporting the Liberals in this particular resolution.
Madam Speaker, in his comments, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) indicated that we should be all adhering to the five fundamental principles of medicare, and I agree with him. In fact, I remind him that it was his federal government that brought out proposals last year saying that they were committed to the five fundamental principles of medicare, and yet that did not prevent the federal government, his party, from slashing and cutting health care unprecedented in this country. So it is one thing to say you are supporting the five principles; it is another thing to put your money where your mouth is. That has not been done.
This, Madam Speaker, is from a party that sat in this Chamber with me when we asked it to support the fight, the changes of this government in health care for the past two years. It supported the government over and over again and voted in favour of Connie Curran in this Chamber.
Having said that, I agree with the principle as enunciated by the member for Inkster. This government has done more to damage the medicare health care system in this province than any other government since the founding of medicare.
The changes to Pharmacare, which virtually destroy the program, are deplorable and are attacks on the sick and a tax on Manitobans, and the changes to home care that they tried to be sneaked through and the effect it will have on patients in the change of personnel and in the kind of care delivered are deplorable. This government does not deserve the support of members in this House for the changes that it has annunciated in health care because of that.
Further, Madam Speaker, the lack of consultation by this government is paramount to running it like--the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) runs Health like he is the CEO of a corporation, similar to some of his friends in the private sector. They do not consult with caregivers; they do not consult with patients. They simply--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have been very patient, and I have listened very attentively. I would remind the honourable member for Kildonan that I explicitly gave directions to all members in speaking during their five minutes that it should be explicitly to the urgency of debate and the immediacy of same.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, as I was indicating, we cannot debate this too soon because the changes that are being put in place by this government will turn around the health care system in Manitoba and will turn it back into the kind of health care system that was here prior to medicare and that ought not to be allowed.
Madam Speaker, the people of Manitoba want a health care system that is public, that is accessible, that is universal. This government and the policies of this Premier are doing more to change that and make it more of an American-style, two-tier system than any other system in history. We cannot debate that too soon because they tried to sneak through the home care changes and they botched the Pharmacare changes, and they are intending to make major changes in our system that will make it very difficult to have the universal, public, accessible system that all Manitobans have wanted and that all Manitobans have hoped for when they voted in the last provincial election. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The motion proposed today by the honourable member for Inkster reads:
THAT the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the threat to the health care system posed by this government.
* (1430)
I am advising the House that the required notice was given. Rule 27 and Beauchesne’s Citations 389 and 390 set out the other conditions that are necessary for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed.
Is the subject matter so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow the matter to be brought on early enough and will the public interest suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention?
There are numerous precedents of Manitoba Speakers who ruled that when the business before the House is the debate of the budget motion that debate is broad enough to allow for most issues to be addressed. I am therefore ruling that the motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) does not meet the criteria required by our rules and practices because the matter contained in the motion can be addressed by members of this House in the debate of the budget.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, with respect, I will have to challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Is it the will of the House to sustain the ruling of the Chair? All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker, if you would canvass the House I do believe there would be support to have a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have support to request a recorded vote?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I just want to indicate that we do not support a recorded vote. We supported the challenge to your ruling, but we feel it would be important not to inconvenience the many members of the public here today for the budget. So we would ask that this matter not be put to recorded vote and proceed with the budget.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster does not have support for a recorded vote.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, in the interest of time, I will be seeking leave of the House to introduce a couple of housekeeping motions related to rule changes and so on. One of them is rather lengthy, so I will defer that until after the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) with respect to the budget in the interest of those gathered in the gallery to hear his address.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey),
THAT this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Motion presented.