HEALTH

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. This committee will come to order. If there are any staff in the outer area, they can come in at this time.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Chairperson, yesterday we had some informal discussions with the former chair and the member for the Liberal Party. I did not have an opportunity to mention it to the minister, but I am just wondering if the committee would be amenable, at ten o’clock there is a ceremony taking place in the Rotunda of the Legislature sponsored by B’Nai Brith of Canada to deal with Holocaust Awareness Week. It is a unique ceremony. It is being held in the rotunda, and I think it would be appropriate, perhaps, if we were to adjourn for 15 or 20 minutes at ten o’clock or just before ten o’clock to allow members of the Chamber to take part in the ceremony.

I know there are all kinds of committees and meetings going on, and we do have to go about our legislative business, but this particular meeting in the Rotunda, I think, would be helpful, and I think it would be appreciated by members if we have an opportunity to participate for 15 or 20 minutes. So possibly if all parties will agree, perhaps we could adjourn at say five to 10 for 15 or 20 minutes to allow members who wish to take part to at least take part in the ceremony. I am looking to see if the--I know the member for the Liberal Party--and I did not have an opportunity to mention it to the minister yesterday.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to recess at ten o’clock for 20 minutes?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed. Make that five to 10.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, there are a whole series of matters that I wish to put on the record dealing with some of the minister’s comments for the past several days, but in the interest of expediting the work of this committee and dealing with some of the very significant issues that have arisen in the last few days, I want to direct some specific questions at the minister relating to some of the documentation that has been released in the last several days.

The first question I would like to ask the minister is: Is the document tabled yesterday entitled Home Care Reform: Challenge and Opportunity Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program, Response to Strategic Redirection of Home Care, dated March 1996, makes numerous references to the 1994 home care work restructuring report, and I wonder if the minister would be prepared to table that report?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the House I was not given the opportunity to read into the record the letter written by Myrna Fritchett and Joyce Rose. I was shouted down by members opposite. Yesterday I tabled in the House the report of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program, and the date on that is March of 1996. The reason that previously I had not tabled that report was because there were indications that there may have been a lack of consensus on the part of the advisory committee respecting the contents of the report. After some discussion, the chair of the committee had made it clear that she had no objection to the report being made public. So I made it public yesterday, but I felt that it was appropriate at the same time to advise honourable members that there were some concerns surrounding that report.

I received yesterday a letter from Myrna Fritchett and Joyce Rose. Myrna Fritchett is a registered nurse with a certificate in gerontology. She is the Director of Care at the Red River Valley Lodge in Morris, Manitoba. Joyce Rose is a former member of the Manitoba Council on Aging. She is the first seniors co-ordinator for Support Services to Seniors for that program in Stonewall, and she is a resident of Stonewall. They wrote to me as follows: Dear Mr. McCrae--

* (0910)

Point of Order

Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. I am looking for your direction insofar as the minister has tabled this letter to all members and whether it is appropriate that, having tabled this letter to all members, the minister would be again reading the record about the letter into the file. Perhaps we could expedite matters insofar as the minister has tabled. We certainly have had opportunity to read it. There is no need for the minister to repeatedly reread the letter.

I am looking for direction insofar as it was tabled. Yesterday during Question Period the minister was called to order in fact. After he had tabled the letter, the Speaker indicated there was no need for him to read the letter into the record insofar as he had already tabled it. So I am looking for direction from you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, I would remind the honourable member that this is not Question Period, this is the review of the Estimates of the Department of Health. As I understand the rules, there is a relatively fair amount of latitude allowed in the asking and in the answering of questions. There should be nothing that might prevent an honourable member in this House or in this committee from reading into the record something that was so appropriate and relevant to the question that was asked in the first place.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the member for that advice.

Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan does not have a point of order, but I would like to remind the committee of a couple of areas that we are dealing with here. Under the rules of the committee, speeches in the Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion. On this line the minister has almost got open-ended because of the administration portion of this line to go anywhere within his department.

Also, under Quotations in Beauchesne’s 496: A member may read extracts from a document, book or other printed publications as part of a speech provided that in doing so no other rule is infringed upon, and his speech should not however, consist only of a single long quotation, or a series of quotations joined together with a few original sentences.

And to remind the committee, there is no longer 30 minutes for responses. You now have only 10 minutes. So the honourable minister, to conclude his answer.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I will take that direction. Even though it is very hard for some of us to be original, I will just try really hard to be original as much as I can.

* * *

Mr. McCrae: As I was saying yesterday in Question Period, I tabled in the House the report of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program. As I also set out, there were some concerns on the part of some of the members of the advisory committee about certain public statements that had been made and about the report itself. I received a letter yesterday from Myrna Fritchett and Joyce Rose, members of the Advisory Committee on Continuing Care.

They wrote to me yesterday as follows: Dear Mr. McCrae: We as members of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program are concerned with media reports regarding the committee’s response to the strategic redirection of home care. We feel the committee’s intent may have been misrepresented in the media. It is our understanding that this committee did not advise against contracting out a portion of present services.

I will read that again, Mr. Chairperson, in case the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) missed that. It is our understanding that this committee did not advise against contracting out a portion of present services. We did recommend that standards development and quality monitoring programs be in place prior to transfer to the new system. That new system is under development and is sometime off in the future.

The letter goes on, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the meetings held last fall with direct service workers was not to give assurance to the workers. It is our understanding that we met hoping to gain greater insight into problems within the existing system. As committee members, we feel that the advisory committee has no role in the labour problems related to this issue.

I will read that one again, Mr. Chairman, for emphasis. As committee members, we feel that the advisory committee has no role in the labour problems related to this issue. Our role, in spite of media interpretation, is to advise the Minister of Health. Sincerely, Myrna Fritchett and Joyce Rose.

* (0920)

The reason I bring some emphasis to that, Mr. Chairman, is it seems that the only way New Democrats can get the attention of the public is to mislead and to leave impressions that are totally opposite to what the facts would substantiate. They have their problems. They are quite desperate as demonstrated yesterday, for example, by the question put by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). They are quite desperate, indeed, in trying to get their message across.

The honourable member for Kildonan from his seat asks if I read Frances Russell this morning. I rarely read Frances Russell and most Manitobans rarely read Frances Russell, but to make the honourable member happy I have a copy of the clippings from the newspaper today, and to make the honourable member happy, perhaps we could adjourn the Legislature long enough for me to read Frances Russell, or maybe I could find some time to squeeze it in today when I am not picking the hair out of my comb or doing something else more important, to read Frances Russell.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, as is the norm in this committee, the minister refused to answer the question as posed, a very specific question concerning his report and his document that he tabled yesterday. I asked him very clearly to table the 1994 home care restructuring report that is mentioned in the document he tabled yesterday, and the minister either--well, let the record show what the minister’s comments were in this regard.

Mr. Chairperson, the minister is attempting to somehow leave the impression that, in fact, this committee did represent the viewpoints of Manitobans. I want to read something from this committee report that the minister tabled yesterday, and this is also from the 1994 restructuring report that the minister has refused to table. I want to read something into the record from the document the minister tabled yesterday, and I am quoting from page 25: Contracting out service delivery among multiple providers is not advisable due to difficulty ensuring quality of service and difficulty co-ordinating across multiple services. Contracting out service delivery requires clear program standards and a system capable of monitoring. Neither of these conditions exist at this time.

What is the significance of that statement, Mr. Chairperson? That statement is from the Connie Curran restructuring project that advises against contracting out of home care services.

This is very, very interesting. Not only did the minister’s favourite consultant, Connie Curran, from this report advise against contracting out, but what did the minister do when we did the public service of releasing the Treasury Board document to the public? The minister finally got around to giving this Treasury Board proposal, the one under the minister’s signature, Jim McCrae, we are going to contract out all of home care, under the minister’s signature.

The minister gave that report finally, after having an advisory committee for almost two years. He gave the advisory committee the report and said, whoops, would you please review the contracting out or privatization proposal and give us recommendations? So this committee, the minister’s advisory committee was given several weeks to try to respond to the already decided, fait accompli government decision, Treasury Board decision, cabinet decision, Minister of Health’s decision to privatize home care.

So when the minister says that he consulted prior to the privatization of home care, he is so wrong, Mr. Chairperson. He cannot table one document, he cannot table one organization, he cannot table one group that is in favour of privatization in this Chamber. Now, I ask him to table the 1994 report that is included in his own document that he tabled yesterday from his advisory committee, and he is unable to do so. Why is he unable to do so? Because the report recommended against privatization. So what do we have? We have a complete lack of justification, a complete lack of information from the minister justifying the decision to privatize.

So, Mr. Chairperson, forgive us for being somewhat skeptical of the minister’s plan to privatize. Forgive us for being suspicious about the proposal to privatize and the genesis of that particular proposal and the genesis of that particular decision. In a vacuum one can only conclude from the evidence and the information that is provided. It is fairly clear from the record that the only people favouring privatization, aside from the minister and the government, were private sector companies who lobbied long and hard for the minister and the government to have contracting out, to privatize home care.

Mr. Chairperson, do not take my word for it. Look in the 1993 document, the presentation by We Care, the president of We Care, Ron Hoppe, to the task force on home care, and in that presentation what did Mr. Hoppe recommend? What did We Care recommend? Privatize home care delivery. Set up a central monitoring agency. What did the government do? The government decided to privatize home care and to set up a central agency and, in fact, the central agency is mentioned in the advisory committee report with the telemarketing capacity, et cetera.

My question again to the minister is, why is the minister refusing to table the 1994 restructuring report that is quoted on several occasions in the document that the minister tabled yesterday? Why is the minister refusing to table that document since it was paid for by the public of Manitoba? Manitobans have a right to know what was in that document.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has not given me time to read what Frances Russell has had to say. I have a bit of a problem, but I do, just picking one paragraph out here, it says, it is wrongheaded because, as Ms. Curran apparently said, there is no accountability to the client or to the government. So here we have Frances Russell and the honourable member for Kildonan nose to nose, head to head, belly to belly with Connie Curran. Interesting that the NDP should be so supportive of Connie Curran. They do not sound supportive of Connie Curran most of the time, but they certainly do today as put forward by Frances Russell on their behalf. It is interesting that the NDP have now made that immaculate sort of conversion on the road to Damascus. Now all of a sudden they--

An Honourable Member: You are mixing your metaphors.

Mr. McCrae: Yes, I think so. It was not immaculate, was it? It was just a plain conversion, yes. But then we have the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) here to correct us when we make grammatical errors so we are in good hands.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very interesting that the NDP, having campaigned against Connie Curran for two or three, four years, lost an election over it, and they are still campaigning against her, and yet today now they have made that, what do you call it, not immaculate but that conversion over to Connie Curran’s way of seeing things. So it is kind of interesting that members opposite are all so interested in Connie Curran’s reports because it appears that some of her opinions agree with those of the New Democrats. Kind of interesting that they today should be singing the praises of Connie Curran. They have really changed their tune, have they not?

I just point out again, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member referred to the report of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program and made a reference to it. I would like to read into the record again a letter written to me yesterday by two members of the Advisory Committee to Continuing Care, Myrna Fritchett and Joyce Rose, as follows: Dear Mr. McCrae, we, as members of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program, are concerned with media reports regarding the committee’s response to the strategic redirection of home care. We feel the committee’s intent may have been misrepresented in the media. It is our understanding that this committee did not advise against contracting out a portion of present services. We did recommend that standards development and quality monitoring programs be in place prior to the transfer to the new system.

The purpose of the meetings held last fall with direct service workers was not to give assurance to the workers. It is our understanding that we met hoping to gain greater insight into problems within the existing system. As committee members, we feel that the advisory committee has no role in the labour problems related to this issue. Our role, in spite of media interpretation, is to advise the Minister of Health.

* (0930)

So I guess I should be careful about Frances Russell, too, because media personnel can sometimes get things wrong. Nobody is infallible, unless it is the member for Wellington, but I do not think she is either. I suppose even Frances Russell might get things wrong from time to time as unthinkable as that may be to members in the New Democratic Party. Frances Russell might be mistaken from time to time like the rest of us.

Since we are talking about media coverage, I would like to read something that I came across yesterday, Mr. Chairman. This is printed in the Brandon Sun: Private home care fills void, it says. As home care attendants marched on the picket line Wednesday, home care workers employed by private companies were busy filling in for their striking civil service counterparts.

Interesting that the union wants to do this work and yet they turn it over to the private companies quite willingly. It is interesting how principles can be sort of so elastic amongst members of the union leadership in this province. First they are against the private people, but then they turn the work over to them with the total support of the NDP. Yet the NDP stands in this House and says, well, no, we do not support that. It is totally confusing.

The article goes on, and I quote, George McMaster, Chairman of We Care Health Services said his company has had a fairly substantial increase in clients due to the strike. Well, I have been hearing all about George McMaster, Mr. Chairman. Nobody in the union movement wants to have anything to do with George McMaster, and yet they say, here, George, you take all this business because we do not want to do it. We want to abandon our clients. We will just let you do it. So you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be upset about George McMaster and then turn over all the work to him. The article continues--

Mr. Chomiak: I do not see the logic in that, Jim.

Mr. McCrae: Well, the honourable member for Kildonan says he does not see the logic. This is what is wrong with the honourable member for Kildonan. He never sees any logic. If it does not fit with his ideas or those of his union boss buddies, then there is no logic. So, you know, it is pretty narrow, and certainly out of sync and out of step with the people of Manitoba.

I continue. George McMaster, Chairman of We Care Health Services said his company has had a fairly substantial increase in clients due to the strike. About 120 home care recipients in Winnipeg have been added to the We Care roster, as have 35 in Neepawa and nine in Brandon. Quote: Most of our staff are part time and have been picking up more hours, McMaster said during a telephone interview Wednesday. It has been hinted that the Brandon-based company, which has franchises across Canada, was part of Health Minister Jim McCrae’s strike-provoking decision to privatize home care.

This is something, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Kildonan has tried to put across, complete with personal innuendo and all that sort of thing that kind of steps across the line and is unkind, to say the least. Now the honourable member for Kildonan wants to tell me what I can say and what I cannot say. This is not unlike the approach of the NDP and their union boss buddies.

It has been hinted that the Brandon-based company, which has franchises across Canada, was part of Health Minister Jim McCrae’s strike-provoking decision to privatize home care. McCrae and the McMasters--We Care was founded by George’s wife, Bev--were neighbours in Brandon, and speculation had it that the move to contract out home care services was based more on that friendship than on any potential benefit to the system.

Now this is the kind of innuendo I am talking about, Mr. Chairman. The honourable member likes to play with innuendo, because when the facts are not there, make something up, you know. We get that all the time with the New Democrats and certainly with their union boss buddies. Now the honourable member has got me--he interrupted me.

So I will have to go back a little bit: It has been hinted that the Brandon-based company, which has franchises across Canada, was part of Health Minister Jim McCrae’s strike-provoking decision to privatize home care. McCrae and the McMasters--We Care was founded by George’s wife, Bev--were neighbours in Brandon, and speculation had it that the move to contract out home care services was based more on that friendship than on any potential benefit to the system, but McMaster scoffed at that notion. There are probably five companies that are of our size in the province and there might be another 20 located in Winnipeg, McMaster said. We are just one of many that might benefit. McMaster also took issue with the wage statistics released by the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union, which represents the home care workers. While the MGEU’s table showed a considerable disparity between the wages paid by government and private companies . We Care franchise owner Ron Hoppe likened the comparison to that of apples and oranges. It is not an honest or forthright comparison, Hoppe said from his Winnipeg office, explaining that the starting rates of private company employees were being compared to the top-of-scale wages for government employees.

Well, that is a nice honest comparison, is it not, Mr. Chairman? That is typical.

In fact, Hoppe said, the differences on a pay cheque amounted to around 10 percent. While home care attendants contend clients will suffer under a privatized system, Diana Ross of Brandon said she and her husband, Andy, have had home care from We Care and from the government and would not be able to choose between the two services.

Let us go over that again. While home care attendants contend clients will suffer under a privatized system, Diana Ross of Brandon said she and her husband, Andy, had had home care from We Care and from the government and would not be able to choose between the two services.

That is these clients’ point of view, and honourable members opposite seem to have substituted their judgment for everybody else’s.

The article continues: We have both of them and I am satisfied with both of them, Ross said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I am, too. I think the people who work in the Home Care program provide valuable service and do good work.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The minister’s time has expired.

Before we continue on this morning, I see we are doing just fine, but I would just like to advise honourable members that during our committee I think it is appropriate if we do stay away from personal attacks on members. Not only is it unparliamentary, but it does not add to the decorum, and I do not appreciate it if we start impugning motives. That is definitely out of line, and I will be calling to order if that does happen during the proceedings.

Mr. Chomiak: I appreciate your comments and I think they are quite appropriate.

Mr. Chairperson, the minister again refused to answer the question dealing with the 1994 restructuring report that the government has that made a number of very wide-ranging recommendations and which the minister is refusing to release.

Now, it is not my tendency to respond to the minister’s, shall we say, comments, but for the purpose of the record I think I should respond to a couple. Firstly, I guess what the problem is in this debate is that while we are trying to focus on the issue of privatization and while we are trying to focus on the issues concerning the privatization motive which the government is refusing to answer, the minister seems to be trying to move the agenda toward questioning the credibility and the sincerity of members or anyone who opposes the move.

I would challenge the minister to do as I have done and meet with workers and clients on a regular basis, as I have been doing for several years, to get their viewpoints as to the privatization plan. I have been meeting with home care clients and home care workers ever since I became the Health critic, and we began hearing rumours of privatization, and people came to me and were asking for information. Until we got the actual Treasury Board document signed by the minister for privatization, we only had to deal with rumours and discussion, but once the document came out and verified everything that we had heard, then what we are going through now commenced.

But, Mr. Chairperson, the discussion is not furthered by twisting facts and by allegations of a personal nature going back and forth. I think it would behoove us to try to stick to the issues and try to stick to a discussion of the issues. Let us deal with one of those right off the top, the question of the involvement of We Care, one of the private companies.

* (0940)

The fact is, in 1993, We Care made a proposal that mirrors the government’s decision to privatize. I asked the Premier and I asked the minister to respond. Both have refused to respond to that issue, yet the other side indicates, oh, we are dealing with innuendo and baseless fact. The fact is the company that stands to gain most from privatization happens to be We Care. We Care happens to be the company that made the proposal that mirrors the government proposal to privatize. In the absence of any documentation or any evidence supporting the government position to privatize, is it not a legitimate question to ask, and I will ask for it again. I have asked for a public review of the relationship, the corporate relationship, between We Care and the government and their involvement in the decision, to clear the air, so we will know whether or not the We Care proposal that mirrored the government proposal made in 1993 was the reason the government decided to privatize.

Somehow by asking for that, we get dismissed as attacking personally. That is a very legitimate question and a very legitimate question for the public of Manitoba to have knowledge of. The number of individuals that have spoken to me personally about that issue amount to the hundreds, not the tens, but to the hundreds. So, Mr. Chairperson, it is a legitimate question, and the fact that it has not been answered causes us a good deal of concern. If the government could come up and say, look, here is the study, here is the proposal that we have from the Department of Health in favour of privatization, and they were to table it, then you would have something to discuss. In the absence of that, it makes it very, very difficult.

There was a 1994 home care work restructuring report that was extensive in its recommendations. It apparently recommended against privatization. It was initially begun under the auspices of Connie Curran. Somehow the minister tries to make a connection that, because one of Ms. Curran’s recommendations is in agreement with ours, that we are in agreement with Connie Curran. I think that is stretching the argument a little far. The minister is the one who has to account for $3.8 million expenditure,plus $800,000 in expenses, tax-free U.S., and he signed the cheque. He has to account for it, not us, Mr. Chairperson. After we had warned him and after the utter and abject failure of that exercise was demonstrated.

The 1994 report on work restructuring is significant and figures several times in the document forwarded to the advisory committee and is mentioned several times. It just does not deal with privatization. It deals with some extensive changes to the home care plan. I think it is incumbent and necessary for the government to table this document because, Mr. Chairperson, if the government refuses or fails to table this document, what conclusions can be drawn? The minister is so concerned about innuendo and accusations floating out there. How does he further his cause by failing to reveal a document that is mentioned on several occasions, that talks about massive changes to the home care system? His failure to provide that document only adds fuel to the fire. It does not help the situation, it does not help the situation one iota.

I am giving the minister an opportunity to clear the air, to forward the document, to allow the public of Manitoba to know what the 1994 home care work restructuring report, the report that is referred to in the home care Strategic Redirection of Home Care response, that is the response of the minister’s advisory committee. The minister has an opportunity to clear the air, to further public debate by tabling this document. I urge him to do so and I am asking the minister today, table the document. Let us have a look at it. It is referred to by the advisory committee. It was paid for by the public of Manitoba. It does not help the debate or the discussion any further by the minister’s failure to reveal this document.

I note I have a little bit of time, and just for clarification, I again would like to advise the minister, on page 8 of his advisory committee report and again on page 25 of his advisory committee report, the advisory committee relies on the 1994 Home Care Work Restructuring report. We have not received a copy of this report. It is obviously of a significant nature as it relates to the privatization plan. I urge the minister to table the document, clear the air, allow the public of Manitoba to know what Ms. Curran’s and what the department’s plans were that were forwarded to his advisory committee that was revealed to us yesterday. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member referred to the report of the Advisory Committee for the Continuing Care Program, and I will read the letter that was written to me yesterday by two members of that advisory committee. In fact, I do not think I will read the whole letter. I will just read this part of it, and I quote: it is our understanding that this committee did not advise against contracting out a portion of the present services.

So, Mr. Chairman, was there something you wanted to say?

Mr. Chairperson: No.

Mr. McCrae: The report of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program is of course part of the documentation advice that the government has received, but that report has to be tempered by the following written to me in a letter yesterday by Myrna Fritchett and Joyce Rose are members of the advisory committee. That being--

Point of Order

Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order. This is the third time in a space of half an hour the minister is reading the same letter into the record. I just wonder what purpose is gained by a verbatim reading into the record of a letter that has been verbatim read into the record on two previous occasions within the last 30 minutes.

Mr. Chairperson: On the honourable member’s point of order, I do not believe he has a point of order. I have been listening very closely to the minister, and he has been directing certain quotations from that letter specifically towards certain areas of the question that the member had asked. So as long as he is within those guidelines, I am afraid we will have to rule him in order.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister to continue.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am in order, too. I do not know, the honourable member, he seems to want to take his time in this committee and ask the questions, but then it is almost like he wants me to be the kind of puppet that he is to the union bosses, and I will not be--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have asked the honourable members if they could refrain from the personal attacks on individual members, and I am afraid we are getting pretty close to the line when we start bringing forward those types of situations.

The honourable minister to continue.

Mr. McCrae: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will continue reading the report. I was interrupted earlier because my time ran out, and so I will finish doing that. I will go back a little bit so we get this in proper context. It is not an honest or forthright comparison, Hoppe said from his Winnipeg office, complaining that the starting rates of private company employees were being compared to the top of scale wages for government employees. In fact, Hoppe said the differences on a pay cheque amounted to around 10 percent.

While home care attendants contend clients will suffer under a privatized system, Diana Ross of Brandon said she and her husband, Andy, have had home care from We Care and from the government and would not be able to choose between the two services. We have both of them, and I am satisfied with both of them, Ross said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

* (0950)

Neepawa’s Noreen Sage, who oversees the care of a female relative of her husband’s, said We Care has filled in for the government attendants in the past. When home care could not get there because of bad weather and so on, they were the back-up people that went in and did her work for her, Sage said. They also do her foot care. The main reason we have home care is to look after mealtimes and medication. Since the strike began Tuesday morning, We Care has taken over the care of Sage’s relative, and the changeover took place without a hitch, Sage said. They have only been there yesterday and today, and things went very smoothly. Everything seemed to be just great, Sage said.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) wants to get into the act. You call us to order from time to time for our misdeeds in this House, but the honourable member for Transcona is now joining the pack, as it were. He may just on his own settle down a little bit, but he might have to be reminded to do that.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I think that I will remind the members of the committee that the Chairperson will be responsible for the decorum. If I need any advice on the decorum of the House I would ask the honourable members to do it in a point of order form, and I will rule with that point of order at that time.

But I would also advise the honourable members who are within the Chamber at this time, if they want to enter into the debate I am sure they can ask their questions at that time. We are attempting to keep the decorum at a very level playing field here, and we have succeeded so far this morning. I appreciate the assistance of all members. If any members do not want to enter into this debate, we would appreciate it if they leave the Chamber. The honourable minister to continue.

Mr. McCrae: Since the strike began Tuesday morning, We Care has taken over the care of Sage’s relative. The changeover took place without a hitch, Sage said. They have only been there yesterday and today, and things went very smoothly, and everything seems to be just great, Sage said.

Should the privatization plans become reality, Sage said she would not be concerned about the change. But she said the scenario might be different for someone who was completely alone. It is a small town, and they know that I might pop in at any time and ask embarrassing questions, Sage said with a laugh. But we are quite pleased with what has been going on, and I have no complaints at all. I think it is quite a good thing that they were in town and were able to take over like this. End of quote.

I have not finished reading Frances Russell yet but I have not been surprised by anything I have read in there yet. There is one thing about Frances Russell, consistency runs through all of her editorials, all of her work. There is an uncommon consistency there. Of course I do not agree with a lot of the things she says, so one could say a foolish consistency. I think it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I believe that was Emerson. Sometimes I get these things just slightly wrong, so maybe the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) should run on over to the library and check out and see if I got that right. But I think that is what Emerson said.

By the way, the demonstration project that I tabled yesterday, report of the demonstration project which flowed from theAPM contract of 1993, the membership of the steering committee there, I should just put that on the record for honourable members, the chair was Frank Maynard, Deputy Minister of Health. Jeanette Edwards, executive director of the Health Action Centre was on there, Dr. Ken Brown, Registrar of the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba was on there. Betty Havens, at that time the assistant deputy minister in the Department of Health was on that steering committee. Marilyn Robinson, at that time interim director of the home care branch, was on it. Marilyn Robinson is now the president of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses. Cathy Lussier, Winnipeg home care supervisor. Dr. Evelyn Shapiro, department of community health, University of Manitoba . We have recently heard from Dr. Shapiro.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. As previously agreed, the time being 9:55, this committee will recess until 10:15. Agreed? The committee is recessed.

The committee recessed at 9:55 a.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 10:43 a.m.

Mr. Chairperson: The meeting will come to order.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I just want to indicate that I appreciate that we had an opportunity to attend the ceremony occurring in the Rotunda to name the names of all of the victims of the Holocaust, and I want to indicate that it was acknowledged by the organizers of the event publicly that we in the Chamber had adjourned. I think it was appreciated by all in attendance that we had recognized the importance of the ceremony and took some time and acknowledged the ceremony per se.

To return to my line of questioning, the advisory committee report that was tabled yesterday was prepared by the committee. After having been for the first time apprised of the government’s goal and intention to privatize home care services, and having been in operation for almost two years and having worked and tried to be participant in the process, the committee was simply told that the government was going to privatize and they weregiven documents and told to comment on that. Notwithstanding that, the committee did refer to the 1994 report and indicated that, as a result of a report provided to them by the 1994 work restructuring report, the ’94 report had advised against privatization, so we have added to the list another report, government-commissioned, government-sanctioned, government-paid for saying again, do not privatize. Again,the case builds against the government argument for privatization.

My question to the minister is, an the minister please indicate--the Premier has indicated that the initiative to privatize is going to save $10 million over three years. The minister in previous statements indicated that there would be no savings and the associate deputy minister said that there might be $10 million,but they were not sure. The advisory committee in its report indicated that there was no cost data provided to them, and I wonder if the minister might table the cost analysis today and the cost data on the government’s plans to privatize home care.

Mr. McCrae: I see a box on page A5 of today’s Winnipeg Free Press, an edition I will refer to in a moment after I have referred to the Price Waterhouse report. The Price Waterhouse report, I am reading, I am looking at the executive summary of that. The Price Waterhouse project or contract, I do not know--does the honourable member recall what the Price Waterhouse report cost? Maybe he could tell us that.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I take it from the minister’s response that he is not intending or unable to answer my question about providing the committee with details of the cost analysis and the cost breakdown about the government plans to privatize because the Premier has said that it will save $10 million over three years. The minister has said publicly that there is no cost savings; and the associate Deputy Minister of Health has said, well it might be $10 million but we are not sure; and the advisory committee report that the minister tabled yesterday made reference to a lack of cost analysis and lack of data for them to make their decisions about the whole issue of privatization and whether or not the government would privatize.

I want to use the opportunity, Mr. Chairperson, to perhaps deal with some of the minister’s previous statements in the committee concerning several matters. I normally do not, but I think it is important that some of these items be cleared up. I am sure the minister is just as anxious as I am to clear up some of these items.

The minister has made constant reference to comments about the VON. It is ironic that we have been fighting to maintain the VON, and the government has been doing everything it can to destroy the VON and the contract. So the minister’s statements again are wrong.

With respect to self-managed care, the minister has said that we were opposed to self-managed care. I only remind the minister that the whole process started when we were the previous administration, and it was concluded under this administration that we have always supported the concept of self-managed care.

* (1050)

The minister failed to acknowledge, in his constant reading of the Kelli Paige letter, that in fact in the article in yesterday’s Sun she indicated that she was not in favour necessarily of privatization. I think that is noteworthy.

The minister also had significant comments about tactics and things like that, and I think that there is no need for honourable members to even respond to comments of those kind by the minister.

Just returning to the line of questioning, the minister seemed unable or unwilling to answer the question about the costing analysis and the costing figures as contained and as referenced in his own committee’s report on his own advisory committee. I guess this speaks volumes about the continuing closed nature of the decision-making process by the government. The decision to privatize was kept to a very small, narrow circle of individuals and would have been kept like that had we not fortuitously had a copy of the Treasury Board’s submission and were able to make it public and thereby generate discussion.

Finally, after we made the document public, the minister decided he could have his advisory committee that he put in place two years ago to advise him on changes to home care, actually take a look at the privatization plan. Again, it speaks volumes about the practices of the government in terms of information management, cloistered at best, and it also speaks volumes about how important it is for the public to have an understanding of the issues involved and have an opportunity to debate, which is why we repeatedly ask in this Chamber for the minister to provide us with information and to provide us with details about what the government plans are with respect to the privatization.

Mr. Chairperson, in the advisory committee report it is fairly clear that the government is going to set up a home care agency, a Crown corporation or some other corporate entity to handle the privatization, the contracting out. Indeed, in the cabinet Treasury Board submission, under the signature of the minister, in the minister’s plan there is actually identified a line item in this year’s Estimates that will be expended in this year for the establishment of the Crown corporation.

Finally, on the day after we revealed to the public the government’s plans, the minister’s plans to privatize home care, the minister said that he saw no difficulty or no problem in setting up this Crown corporation and moving on it immediately. I would like the minister to advise the House today, given these factors, given that the advisory committee received a copy of the plan, and that the minister advise this House today as to what the plans are for the Crown corporation.

Mr. McCrae: I asked the honourable member if he can tell us what the Price Waterhouse report cost.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. At this time, I would like to remind the minister that we are dealing with the section of the Committee of Supply under item 1.(b)1. If the minister is asking for clarification of the question of the honourable member, that would be appropriate at this time, but if you can explain to me where the report of Price Waterhouse is reflected within his question then that would be fine, but I am having trouble relating the two at this time.

Mr. McCrae: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The honourable member has been asking questions about home care. We are on that line respecting administration in the department, and we have been told by the Chair that the discussion can be quite wide ranging, and in the spirit of that wide-ranging nature of the debate, that is the spirit within which I am working. The honourable member can pass this line and get on to something else if he wants, but I can only go by the direction we got from the Chair, which is that this is wide-ranging. What the honourable member wants to do, I am sure, is flesh out as much as he can with respect to home care, and that would be a useful thing to do. It is in that regard that he wants to know about cost. We have talked about cost publicly and in this House, and we will continue to do so, no doubt.

The reason that I ask this is that the Price Waterhouse report told the NDP that they should bring in user fees, that they should cut services, and that is all part of the background to everything that is going on here. I think there is probably a clear intention, as evidenced in the Price Waterhouse report when the New Democrats were in office, to bring in user fees and to cut services, but I would like to get at that so we can have these proposals on the table for discussion. We do not believe in cutting services and bringing in user fees. The NDP does. I just want to know how much they paid for that advice.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, just for clarification, I do not know if the minister is aware of this, and perhaps this would help solve the difficulty. There was a report that was created in 1986 called the Price Waterhouse report. The minister may not be aware that he has a committee in his department that are looking after the implementation of the Price Waterhouse report.

Perhaps we can resolve these issues if the minister is prepared to bring to this Chamber his officials who are administering and dealing with the very Price Waterhouse report the minister is talking about. Not only will we have information about it, the minister could ask people on that committee, his own committee that know about the report, perhaps they could answer questions, not just for members on this side of the House, but perhaps they could answer questions that the minister seems unaware of with regard to that particular report. Maybe matters can be expedited if the minister were to bring his own committee who were on the Price Waterhouse report to this Chamber to answer questions. I think that would be a very useful exercise.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. There is a strike on. The NDP wants this strike. The NDP wants to abandon the clients of home care, but when the NDP abandons the clients of home care--

Point of Order

Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, I believe the minister in saying that the NDP wants to abandon the people of home care is imputing motive, and I think it is a very inappropriate statement, particularly in a strike situation, for a minister of the Crown to make about any honourable member in this Chamber, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. McCrae: On this point, I would invite you, Mr. Chairman, to read Hansard. In Question Period a couple of days ago, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.Reid) was complaining about people having service being provided to them. Read that and perhaps--what do you call it--reserve on this point until you have read what the member for Transcona says. It is very clear that the NDP wants to deny service to clients.

Mr. Chairperson: I will take this under advisement and bring it back to the committee, but I do ask the committee’s indulgence. If we do want to accomplish things here, we have to work together as a committee. If we can stay away from the personal attacks and imputing motives, I think it does start adding to a little bit of the decorum problems that we run into from time to time and, yes, we are under a lot of pressure the way things are today, so I ask for your indulgence. I will bring back the advice on the honourable member’s point of order.

* (1100)

* * *

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I engaged in a personal attack; I engaged in a general attack on the NDP. The NDP wants to abandon the clients of home care. The public needs to know that. It is very relevant to this debate, and while the NDP wants to abandon the clients of home care, those clients need service. My department is busy. They do not have time to come in here and answer the honourable member’s questions. We are busy trying to provide service to the clients of the home care system. [interjection]

It would be relevant for us to know and maybe our implementation team will provide me with this information, but surely the honourable member is so close to this. He knows so much about home care. He knows so much about every aspect of the home care system; he must know how much the NDP paid Price Waterhouse for their advice to bring in user fees and to cut services. I mean the honourable member cannot have it all ways. He wants to but he cannot. I will not let him. See, he cannot come in here as the self-proclaimed expert on home care without that key piece of information, how much did the NDP pay for the recommendation to cut home care and to bring in user fees? It is a very relevant question. The members opposite, I do not mean this personally, I just make a general condemnation of the NDP, and I will not be specific and single out the member for Kildonan or the member for Transcona, Mr. Chairman, but they are part of the NDP, and they will have to judge for themselves whether they should be included in that condemnation.

The fact is they want to remove services from senior citizens in this province. They will not discuss an essential services agreement. If they insist that there be a strike, so be it, but why do they not care about people who require services, people who need to be turned in their beds, people who need to have their oxygen turned off or on, people who need help with their bowel movement routine each day? Why will they not help out? Why will they not stand up? They are always talking about standing up for people. Why do they not stand up for people who have Alzheimer’s disease? Do honourable members realize what it is like to live with Alzheimer’s disease? Do they realize what it is like to live with multiple sclerosis? [interjection] Well, then why, if they do--the member for Transcona says he does--then why does he insist that those people not get any service? Why, Mr. Chairman? Why do those New Democrats not care about people who have Parkinson’s disease? Do they know what it is to live with Parkinson’s disease?

Point of Order

Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister is again going right off the track in saying that we are insisting that home care clients not get service, I think is inappropriate--[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan at this time is putting forward his point of order. I would like to hear what the honourable member has to say.

Mr. Chomiak: It is totally inappropriate in a strike situation or any situation indeed to suggest that honourable members are insisting that home care recipients, many in life and death or life threatening situations, do not get access to home care. I take personal exception, I take exception as a member of the Legislature, I take exception as a member of a constituency who spoke yesterday with a gentleman who had multiple sclerosis who had to be moved to a hospital who is going through a great deal of difficulty and who had asked for my help and I had phoned. I take great exception to the minister saying that not only do we not care, but in saying that we insist that these people not get care. I think that is completely inappropriate for a member of the Crown, the Minister of Health, to suggest, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member for Kildonan is indeed sensitive on this point. This is the very, very touchiest point in this whole issue. It is bad enough that he supports a strike that removes services from people, but he supports removing services from multiple sclerosis patients living happily in their homes and being shipped off to hospitals. This is what they want. They have made it very clear, and if you need evidence for that, in your review of this particular point of order in a long string of points of order, read what the member for Transcona had to say in Question Period a couple of days ago. Have a look at that. He objects to people--I think his question had to do with calling in staff of the Department of Health to assist with assisting clients of the Home Care program. He objects to that. He stood in his place and said so. I invite you to read that, and the honourable member for Kildonan simply does not know what he is talking about or he is carrying on with this sort of attack on the clients of our home care system.

Mr. Chairperson: I would like to thank the members for their input--if you will just give me one minute. Order please. I would like to advise the honourable members that they did not have a point of order; it was a dispute over the facts. I would advise all honourable members to choose their words carefully or we will be ending up on points of order for the rest of the morning and we will not accomplish much.

* * *

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, the New Democrats support cuts in service and user fees. Will they tell us how much they paid for the advice that gives them the right to support those things?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I thought that I had been of some assistance to the committee by recommending to the minister, advising the minister firstly that if he did not know, that he has an implementation committee on the Price Waterhouse report, and that he could bring these officials in from this committee and they could answer. Not only could they answer the questions for us, but they could probably help us by answering other questions with regard to home care. But the minister seems unwilling or unable to take us up on that particular point.

I am very, very tempted to respond to some of the comments of the minister, but I will let the record show that perhaps in the heat of the situation that is going on some members have a tendency to say things that are inappropriate and inaccurate, and I would hope as we move along in this committee that we will be able to deal not with personalities but with issues and facts.

If the minister does not want to answer my question, the minister can simply state he does not want to answer my question, but to counter with attacks, I think, is counterproductive. I return again to the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program, and I return to the question that I posed to the minister initially, and the minister--

An Honourable Member: . . . rumoured to be a $5-million contract--Price Waterhouse, $5 million. Is that true?

Mr. Chomiak: The minister keeps throwing figures out about contracts, and I just want to remind the minister that the largest consulting contract in provincial history may soon be about to be outdone by KPMG. The largest consulting contract in provincial history was signed by this minister to one Connie Curran in APM management, and I believe that contract was $3.8 million plus $800,000 in expenses tax-free U.S. And the minister signed that, and I dare say--in fact, Mr. Chairperson, it is significant that Connie Curran should come up, and I am glad that the minister mentioned it. I am glad it has come up because, as a result of the Connie Curran contract, she was engaged to do a home care study. The home care study is referred to in the advisory committee report that the minister tabled yesterday, but the one piece of information the minister did not table yesterday was the 1994 Connie Curran study that we paid up to $3.8 million plus $800,000 in expenses tax-free U.S. We paid that. The Minister of Finance signed the cheques, but the Minister of Health signed the contracts and doled over the money.

* (1110)

But we do not have a copy of that report, and I repeatedly have asked the minister during the course of these Estimates to provide us with a copy of the ’94 report. He is either unable or unwilling to provide us with a copy of that report, and I have asked that question on numerous occasions and I am not going to pursue that. I again just reiterate to the minister I would appreciate if he would table it and allow Manitobans to decide upon themselves as to why you decided to privatize, because I again reiterate to the minister that that report apparently suggested, not apparently, it is quoted, that report is quoted in the advisory committee report: Contracting out service delivery among multiple providers is not advisable due to difficulty ensuring quality of service and difficulty co-ordinating across multiple services. Contracting out service delivery requires clear program standards and a system capable of monitoring. Neither of these conditions exist at this time.

So, Mr. Chairperson, it is very relevant, and it is very significant, and we are not getting it. But to return to my question that I asked initially, the minister indicated that the Crown corporation would be set up this year to privatize home care. The advisory committee’s documents indicate that the Crown corporation--I have got the document in front of me--it suggests a Crown corporation is going to be set up almost immediately. There is an item in the Treasury Board paper signed by the minister on the privatization plan, the minister’s privatization plan, and in the minister’s privatization plan there is an indication, not an indication, there is a direction that money will be expended out of this year’s Estimates for the establishment of this Crown corporation.

I would like to ask the minister what the status is of his privatization Crown corporation that he referred to on February 28 that would be set up this year that is referred to in the advisory committee documents, and in the minister’s privatization Treasury Board submission signed by the minister, there is reference to an expenditure of I believe $150,000 for the establishment of the Crown corporation.

I am not sure, because the minister is so excised and so excited, if he heard the question, so I will repeat it again. Can the minister outline for us today what the status is of the Crown corporation to monitor or control the privatization of home care as directed by the minister in his Treasury Board submission of December 16, 1995, and referred to by the minister on February 28 in the Free Press as going ahead and as referred to in the advisory committee document that was tabled yesterday? What is the status of that Crown corporation? Is it going to be up and running this year?

Mr. McCrae: I cannot confirm or deny this, but it has been suggested that the NDP paid $5 million U.S. for the Price Waterhouse report. There is also a suggestion that a number of key people in Price Waterhouse are from Dallas and New York. I wonder if the honourable member can straighten that out for me, please?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I think the minister is confusing things here. I just want to correct the minister. The minister is probably confusing the Connie Curran report, the APM report that the minister commissioned and signed and paid $3.8 million plus $800,000 in expenses tax-free U.S. for Connie Curran APM associates headquartered in Chicago and New York and the five principles who flew down here regularly and initially stayed at the Westin Hotel and then occupied extra suites at St. Boniface Hospital and Health Sciences Centre. I think the minister is confusing the Price Waterhouse report of which the minister has an implementation committee and officials who are working on it. The minister perhaps should ask those officials. I know they are busy. All officials of the Department of Health are very occupied and preoccupied on the strike as is necessary, but he might want to put a call into some of those officials who could clarify for him.

I am not sure if he knows he has an implementation committee, but I am advising him he does. He has an implementation committee in his own department. He could ask these individuals perhaps, and they would clarify the confusion the minister seems to have between the APM Connie Curran report that the minister signed the cheques for, or the Minister of Finance signed the cheques for, and the Price Waterhouse report that was commissioned over 10 years ago. Perhaps if the confusion could be clarified in the minister’s mind, he would understand.

I go back to my question to the minister. When you signed the Treasury Board document in December 1995 to privatize home care, there is a chart on there for the establishment of a Crown corporation. It is called Home Care Agency. The Home Care Agency, according to the minister’s signed document, is: They will carry out research; telemarketing--telemarketing for a home care agency? I hope the minister gets that one--technology; evaluation; assessment; care planning; quality assurance; contract service delivery. That Home Care Agency, that document I am showing to the minister, it is in the advisory committee report. They were asked to advise on it. The minister, when we released the Treasury Board document, the minister’s privatization plan, when we released it to the public for the first time, when we released it the minister that day, stated in the Winnipeg Free Press that this agency would be set up-- and I am paraphrasing so I hope it is accurate--within the year. I am quite sure that that is what the minister said because it is quoted.

The Treasury Board document that the minister signed on privatization said that, I believe it is $150,000 would be expended this budgetary year on the establishment of this home care agency to carry out assessment, evaluation, technology, telemarketing, research, quality and care planning. I am asking the minister today, given that he signed the document, given that he said publicly the agency would be set up, given that the advisory committee on home care was told to comment on the establishment of this agency, I wonder if the minister can advise us and will be prepared to tell us what the status is of this agency.

For reference purposes, on page 28 of the minister’s document that he tabled yesterday is a copy of the mandate of this committee. It is on page 28. It has been reproduced from the Treasury Board document, dated December 16, 1995, signed by the minister on the privatization of home care. It is reproduced from that document. That same Treasury Board document in December also indicated $150,000 would be expended this year on the establishment of this Crown corporation, so I am wondering if the minister could outline for us--and it is very significant, because the story has changed quite dramatically from the minister, in terms of what is happening on the home care privatization, from the initial days when we leaked the document signed off by the minister with respect to privatization of home care, the minister’s plan to privatize home care.

When we initially provided that document to the public the minister said they were going ahead full steam. He seems to have backed off. He is nodding though he has not backed off. I do not think he has. I think they are going ahead full steam, as was in the Treasury Board document for the full-scale privatization, which leads to a very interesting series of questions with respect to the negotiations going on now, but I will leave that.

My question to the minister is on this Crown corporation that the minister asked his advisory committee to comment on, which the minister commented on and said was going to be going ahead this year, which the minister signed off when he provided the Treasury Board submission and which is included in this document, what is the status of that Crown corporation? I hope that is specific enough.

* (1120)

Mr. McCrae: It may be true that representatives of Price Waterhouse hail from places like Dallas and New York. I do not know, the honourable member might be able to shed some light on that. But that is the group that the NDP consulted, and they came out with the policy that the NDP would bring in user fees and cut services, make people wait longer for their services. Dilute services is the language used by their supposedly American friends from Price Waterhouse. So the honourable member maybe can tell me whether their friends from Price Waterhouse, the principles of Price Waterhouse, whether there is anybody remotely associated with Price Waterhouse from either Dallas, New York or any other American city, and he might also tell me if it is true that the contract was $5 million U.S. If that is all not true, then let him tell us. If it is true, let him tell us.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I again have another, hopefully, a means by which the minister can avail himself of that information that I think will be helpful to the committee, and I am certain it will be helpful to the minister, and that is the former Minister of Health Don Orchard, who knew all of these things, who had these committees set up and established, actually made constant reference during the course of Estimates debates, about three Estimates ago, to the Price Waterhouse report, the former Minister of Health Mr. Orchard who I believe set up the committees to administer the Price Waterhouse report and who--the minister, I think, was unaware that these committees were in place, but he is now aware that he has implementation committees in his department who were doing this. He might want to check with the former Minister of Health, and he might want to check the Hansard proceedings of this committee in fact where discussions took place by the former Minister of Health Don Orchard who was fully aware of this process and structure and made constant reference to it.

In fact, I do recall, though I do not recall specific figures, the former Minister of Health Don Orchard actually knew not only the figure and cost, but he knew that he had a committee of implementation. I think he had set it up, and he knew the figures of the Price Waterhouse report. So if the minister cannot avail himself and if his officials are too busy on his own implementation committee team, now that he knows he has one with Price Waterhouse, the minister can either phone the members of his own committee to avail himself of that information or perhaps he could check with the former Minister of Health who had a tremendous knowledge of this area. Or finally, to assist the minister, I suggest--you know, our staff are fairly occupied and I would even do it myself; I would check the old Hansard minutes from about three Estimates ago. With the former Minister of Health, the Honourable Don Orchard, a discussion took place and the former Minister of Health knew those figures, and I think it is referenced in Hansard.

So I think we could save ourselves a lot of time if the minister--he has got a much larger staff than we do--and I know, and the minister has indicated that they are very, very busy, but the minister is spending a lot of time on this issue. I think if he is as concerned about Price Waterhouse as he indicates, and I have no doubt that he is very concerned, he can follow one of these routes, that is, to check with his own implementation team on Price Waterhouse who are fully aware of the Price Waterhouse report, and who are involved in implementation. Secondly, he could check with the former Minister of Health who had a working knowledge, who understood this, or thirdly, he could check Hansard debates, and I have knowledge of the fact that is was referred to by the former Minister of Health who actually had the figure and who knew what that actual figure was.

If he could perhaps check those sources, we could move on in terms of this committee and the minister could then--so I am suggesting three routes and three courses of action to the minister that will assist him in finding out this particular information.

If the minister wants information with respect to the Connie Curran contracts, I have a full file. Probably the biggest file in my office is devoted to the contracts and a lot of the paper from that, and I could refer to that in terms if the minister wants clarification of what that contract was, and I stand to be corrected, but I believe it was the largest consulting contract ever entered into in this regard, I suppose with the exception of Hydro contracts. But, certainly by the Department of Health it was the largest and most expensive contract ever entered into, and that is not even in computing U.S. exchange rates. So I have an extensive file on that, and I could provide that information to the minister.

But I suggest that he check those three sources of information concerning the Price Waterhouse report that he has an implementation committee on, that he could refer to the former minister, or he could refer to Hansard debates in this committee of Estimates that took place, I believe it was three years ago, and I do recall a number being suggested or being offered by the then-Minister of Health Don Orchard.

I find it perplexing that the minister is unwilling or unable to answer the question about the Home Care Agency, because it is so integral to the establishment of this privatization scheme. I think the public of Manitoba deserves to know what the government’s plans are with respect to privatization.

Let us consider why this agency was set up. When the minister signed off the Treasury Board document in December, it called for the establishment of a home care agency--one would presume a non-government, or NGO--but the direction seemed to be that it would be a Crown corporation. Contained in the Treasury Board document was a chart and a diagram outlining the duties of this Crown corporation. The minister made reference to it on February 28 when he said that it would be going full steam ahead this year, and in addition, there is an expenditure item of about $150,000 in regard to this Crown corporation that was in the minister’s Treasury Board document on privatization that he signed off.

Finally, and I think most significantly, when the advisory committee on home care was told to examine the whole process of the minister’s plans to privatize home care, they were given working documents in this regard and have reproduced, in their report that was tabled yesterday in this House by the minister, a chart that outlines the home care agency. I can only conclude from these actions, Mr. Chairperson, that the plans to proceed with this Crown corporation home care agency are proceeding full steam ahead. The minister has given me no reason to think otherwise, and I can only presume that if the minister is unwilling or unable to answer this question, then we will be proceeding full steam ahead for the establishment of this Crown corporation this year, as was suggested by the minister on February 28, I believe, and as was reproduced from this document.

So my question again is not complex; my question is fairly straightforward: Can the minister give us any indication about the status of the Crown corporation or the home care agency that was to be set up to oversee the privatization of home care, that is, the minister’s plan to privatize home care, as outlined in December 1995? Can he outline for us what the plans are for this Crown corporation? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McCrae: This page xix, Mr. Chairman, Price Waterhouse report, NDP policy, number--the first one-- and I quote: The program should require regional program managers to manage their budgets more actively and to stay within approved levels and should give program staff greater discretion over service levels per client, i.e., permitting dilution of services in order to achieve budget targets. That is NDP policy. Here is the second NDP policy: The program should give consideration to introducing measures that would serve to encourage clients to meet their needs through their own resources, e.g., user fees, waiting periods prior to receiving non-professional services, user fees during the initial period of service and limiting hours in which services are provided. End quote. NDP policy. We would like to know how much they paid for that advice.

Mr. Chomiak: I am perplexed, Mr. Chairperson. I have asked the minister for the third or fourth time about his Treasury Board document, his submission to privatize home care, a specific question about it, and the minister has refused to answer. The minister has countered with a reference to a report from 1986. I have already told the minister that he has an implementation team for this committee. Perhaps he could aid the process by having one or two of these members appear in this committee at our next sitting and they could answer the questions. They could answer the questions that the minister is posing with respect to the Price Waterhouse report. His own committee members, his members of staff, could answer the questions for us and permit the minister to be satisfied as to what his questions are. I do not understand why the minister would not avail himself of that. If his staff members are so preoccupied on the situation, then perhaps at a later date when the matter is resolved the minister can bring in those staff members who are in fact charged with that responsibility, he can bring them in and he could answer the questions for the minister.

* (1130)

Secondly, Mr. Chairperson, I have told the minister, the former Minister of Health Don Orchard was well aware of the situation. If he would refer to Hansard debates of three years ago he would see reference to that particular question, that particular point. Now, the minister only has to check Hansard to find out, or, more directly, if the minister has a moment perhaps he could phone the former Minister of Health Don Orchard, who set up the committees that the minister now has to deal with the implementation of the Price Waterhouse report.

So, Mr. Chairperson, I think that we could certainly expedite matters in this regard if the minister were to follow these suggestions. I do not see any particular need to continue asking the same question when I am not getting a response. I guess the record will have to show that the minister was unable or unwilling to answer the question.

I guess I will have to pursue another line in questioning. Perhaps the minister is more familiar and would be more comfortable if he were to answer questions about his Treasury Board submission dated December 16, 1995, signed off by the minister and entitled Strategic Redirection of Home Care. This was the Treasury Board document that we obtained and we were able to provide to the public to allow them to debate the issue of home care, Mr. Chairperson. This document that was signed off by the minister outlines the departmental plans for the privatization of home care. I made reference to it before, particularly the reference to the future utilization of user fees by the government in regard to home care, and that is contained in the document.

In fact I will quote from the document. It says under the title What Will Be, services to be categorized: core services, government funded; core services, government/customer share costs. I will come back to that. Then noncore services, customer funded.

Of course, Mr. Chairperson, this strongly suggests--it does not suggest, this says there will be user fees. This says that core services will have the government and the home care patient share the cost. The minister does not like using the words “user fees” except in the context of the Price Waterhouse report, but maybe there is some other explanation as to why his document, signed off by the minister, does not suggest but recommends and says what will be will be the establishment of shared costs between the customer and the government as relates, I want to reiterate, not as relates to noncore services but as relates to core services.

Now, I have made reference to that, and the minister has refused to answer the question. In fact, the minister refused to answer any questions about the document that he signed off, that was under his direction for the privatization of home care. He has refused to answer these questions but I, again, in the interests of public knowledge, in the interests of assisting in the process, in the interests of--you know, Mr. Chairperson, this Treasury Board document has been reproduced in the thousands, and thousands of Manitobans have this document. I know that because they come up to me and they say, what about this on this page and what about this on this page? They come up to me with the same questions that I am posing in this House.

So if the minister has difficulty answering my questions, perhaps he can reflect on the fact, perhaps he could recognize that these questions are being asked by Manitobans who have a copy of his document signed off by the minister calling for the privatization of home care. They have a copy of this document. In fact, the minister was asked the question that I am posing today on the core services’ user fee issue. He was again unable or unwilling to answer at the forum that was attended by myself that the minister spoke at about a week and a half ago.

I guess at some point the minister is going to have to explain this policy. He has been unable and unwilling to explain why he signed off this document to privatize home care and why it is now Manitoba Health policy, and I quote: Divestiture of all service delivery, divestiture of all service delivery is Manitoba Health policy.

I would like to know where that policy came from. I would like to know; the public would like to know, where that came from. I would also like to know about the Crown corporation that is contained in this document, what is to be entailed, how it is to be set up. I would like the minister to answer questions about that because in this document, in this Treasury Board submission, it is stated that expenditures will be expended this budgetary year, the very Estimates that we are discussing, for the establishment of this Crown corporation, this government model. And it is stated in this document that the minister is going to use funds that we are talking about now in the course of these Estimates to set up this Crown corporation to privatize home care.

So I think it is very important and very significant that the minister take the time to answer these questions and take the time to inform Manitobans as to what his plans are and what the government’s plans are. Further, with respect to this document, there are a myriad of questions about the provision of service.

This document states that the VON are a big loser, and that the VON are going to be eliminated from the process. I think the VON, who have done outstanding service in the community, I believe it is for 100 years--why is the government seeking to disband that organization, and why is the government seeking to eliminate the VON who have done so much to build up the program? But it is stated in the document that the VON are going to be eliminated, except they will get a chance to bid, I might add. They might get to bid on one of the contracts, but they will be eliminated from the provision and the supplying of home care in Manitoba.

In the Treasury Board document, I want to quote again from the minister’s privatization: Initiate expenditures toward start-up of the new company to a maximum $150,000 in 1995-96 and 1996-97.

So we are not just talking about airy-fairy stuff. The government has committed itself to $150,000 in the last budgetary year and $150,000 this year. So I wonder if the minister might explain to us today what he intends to do in this regard on this variety of issues.

Mr. McCrae: I know this does not have the signature of the member for Kildonan because he was not a member of the Doer-Pawley government, but it must have the signature of Gary Doer, the Leader of the Opposition, because he was in the Pawley government, so I do not know, probably signed by Gary Doer.

Anyway, it says: the program should require regional program managers to manage their budgets more actively and to stay within approved levels and should give program staff greater discretion over service levels per client, i.e., permitting dilution of services in order to achieve budget targets, and the program should give consideration to introducing measures that would serve to encourage clients to meet their needs through their own resources, e.g., user fees, waiting periods prior to receiving non-professional services, user fees during the initial period of service and limiting hours in which services are provided.

We will do our own investigation, Mr. Chairman, but how much did the NDP pay for the development of this policy of theirs with respect to user fees and cutting services?

* (1140)

Mr. Chomiak: I have a further suggestion to assist the minister and hopefully assist this committee. I note the report the minister is referring to is only a photocopy of only some small recommendations. I have in my possession the full report that we pulled out of the library, and I am prepared to provide that full report to the minister, so that he can review the whole report. Maybe that will answer some of the questions that he seems to have so much difficulty dealing with. Mr. Chairperson, that is the fourth suggestion that I have now made today to help the minister deal with his difficulties with the report. You know, I am almost tempted to phone some of the officials from the Department of Health who are involved in the implementation of this report and ask them to perhaps do a memo or speak to the minister to let him know, not only that they exist--well, he is aware they exist now, because I have told him three or four times--so that they could provide the minister with some of these answers to the question of this particular report that was produced about 10 years ago.

I guess any objective observer who has occasion to review the proceedings thus far this morning in this Estimates process will, in initial reading, think that we have not made a lot of progress. I, being an eternal optimist, suggest we have made some progress, Mr. Chairperson. Let me sum up some of the things that we have accomplished: The minister is now aware that he has an implementation committee for the Price Waterhouse report. Secondly, he is now aware of some vehicles and some information that he can obtain from his own committee members. I have given him some options and alternatives to find out answers to the pressing questions that he is posing today.

Secondly and more important, insofar as the minister has been unwilling or unable to answer the questions posed about his privatization plan, I can suggest that the minister does not want to answer questions about the privatization plan. It is fairly clear from a reading of these debates that the Minister of Health does not want to answer questions about the Crown corporation, about the costing that he was contradicted about by his leader, about the implementation of user fees on the home care program, about the recommendations in 1994 of Connie Curran with respect to restructuring. None of these questions the minister has been prepared to answer, and the minister in fact has refused to answer these questions. So I do not know what to suggest about what the minister’s desire is in this regard. It is fairly clear that he is not prepared to answer questions dealing with the topics as they relate to Manitobans. He was not prepared to do it yesterday with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). He is clearly not prepared to answer questions today dealing with the issues that are first and foremost in the minds of Manitobans, and that is the entire question of the contracting out of service delivery and the privatization of home care in Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson, I guess I, in the interest of moving things along in this committee, will try to move to another line of questioning in the hope that the minister will perhaps see his way clear to answering to us and through us to the public of Manitoba about some of the initiatives that they have undertaken. The minister has recently received a letter from the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses that is somewhat critical, to the say the least, of the government plan to privatize home care.

I wonder if the minister, in light of the fact that virtually no organization, virtually no group has endorsed the government, literally no group, no organization, no agency has endorsed the government plan to privatize, and insofar as the minister has been unable to produce a single document supporting the privatization, and insofar as the government has been unable to produce a single study endorsing or recommending or condoning the government plan to privatize, and insofar as almost every single organization in health care that I am aware of has said that they are against the minister’s plans to privatize, and insofar as the minister has now received a letter from the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses--the same organization that the minister cited time and time again both in this Chamber during the course of Question Period and during the course of last year’s Estimates as the organization that the minister consults with on a regular basis before he implements policy--insofar as this organization has sent him a strongly worded letter dated April 3, 1996, criticizing the minister’s plan to privatize, insofar as the minister himself has suggested time and time again the significance of this organization and their work, insofar as this organization has now come out against the minister’s plan to privatize; I wonder if the minister might comment on whether or not this letter dated April 11, ’96 from MARN against privatization has had any effect on him concerning the government plan to privatize.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, worked fairly hard to try to extend a hand and lock arms, as a matter of fact, with the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses and go forward with some of the changes going on in health in Manitoba. I look at the Youville Centre satellite project, for example, in St. Vital. I have been out there. I was able to officially open that nurse-managed care unit there, and I was pleased to be joined in that by representatives of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses.

When you have partnerships it is not like the union, Mr. Chairman, where everybody is forced to think the same way. There is a sort of a thought-police mentality that goes on at the upper echelons of the union, and if you do not agree, then you are intimidated and threatened by your union bosses. That is not the way we partner on this side of the House. I know that is the way the New Democrats do, but it is not the way we do things. We partner in a real way. Partners do not always agree. Partners continue to work together. Partners discuss and consult, and one of the partners in this case, the government of Manitoba, has been elected by the people of Manitoba to make decisions and to govern in this province for the highest good of everyone in the province and not just the union bosses.

Indeed the president of the MARN, Marilyn Robinson, is a former interim director of our Home Care Branch, and also a member of the steering committee of the Home Care Demonstration Project. So I do not need to hear from--you see, the honourable member’s way of looking at it, Mr. Chairman, is that you partner with somebody so therefore you do what they tell you. That is the approach that they take when they are in opposition, but not when they are in government.

I remember back in 1987, I think it was, reading in this House a news article from the head of the Manitoba Society of Seniors. Her name was Marguerite Chown. At that time I think it was over Pharmacare increases that the NDP were bringing in, probably as part of their macro strategy of user fees and cutting services, but I remember reading an article from, I think it was the MSOS Journal, if not that, it was one of the other newspapers. Marguerite Chown was the president of the MSOS, and she said that the members of the MSOS felt betrayed by the New Democratic Party.

* (1150)

So what is new, Mr. Chairman? Nobody is being betrayed around here, but the fact is the honourable member, by his comments today, demonstrates that he does not understand partnership. Partnership, to him, is where you just do what somebody else tells you all the time. Well, I can tell the honourable member that there are all kinds of points of view out there in our society on any one issue. In fact, on farm issues there are all kinds of points of view. One of my farm friends says if you get two farmers together in a room, you are going to get three opinions. Well, I do not know about that, but that is what my friend the farmer told me. With the NDP, of course, you are going to get lots of opinions on each and every topic and they are not always consistent. Today, they sit in this place and they join their union-boss buddies on the picket lines and they say, oh, those awful Tories, they are going to bring in user fees and cut services, which is not the policy of this government. Yet I have this report, this NDP report, that says we should bring in user fees and cut services. You be the judge or maybe you cannot be the judge. Let the people of Manitoba be the judges.

Mr. Chomiak: Again, in a spirit of optimism I suggest we are making progress. I suggest the minister has indicated that we on this side of the House are expressing a viewpoint based on viewpoints that we have gathered and heard concerning privatization. Terrific. Now will the minister please table for us his studies, his recommendations, his documents, that justify his plan, signed off by the minister on December 16, 1995, for the privatization of home care? Will he table those documents and table those opinions, Mr. Chairperson.

Let us take the minister’s argument. We have MARN opposing the privatization. We have virtually most of the home care workers opposing the government plan to privatize. We have most of the clients that I have spoken to opposing the government plan to privatize. We have the Manitoba Society of Seniors opposing the government plan to privatize. We have virtually every organization affected opposing. We have the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities not only opposing but taking an active part in opposing the government plan to privatize. We have David Martin and his organization, Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped, opposing the government plan to privatize. We have Theresa Ducharme opposing the minister’s decision to privatize.

So we have virtually every organization and group opposing the minister’s plan to privatize. In addition, Mr. Chairperson, we know that the Connie Curran report opposes the government plan to privatize. We know that there is no cost data justifying the government’s plan to privatize home care. We know the minister has refused to answer any questions about it, but we are now at a point where the minister said they have to govern and they have to make decisions, and I agree. They were elected, and I agree. The people spoke, I agree.

Now can the minister then put out, provide to us the documentation, the arguments, the studies, the data, justifying their plan to privatize, because as I have said time and time again in this Chamber, let the public decide but give them the information first. At this point, the argument has been one-sided because the government has failed to produce any information justifying the decision. So I admit the government has had a tough time selling this. They have not been able to produce any information or any data.

Well, the minister has a chance. This is a public forum. The minister has a chance to come forward with documentation. He has a chance to come forward with studies. He has a chance to table information, studies and data justifying this plan to privatize. Then, perhaps, the court of public opinion out there can decide the issue. But until that happens, Mr. Chairperson, how can we accept the government arguments when in fact all they are a fait accompli. All we have is a Treasury Board submission signed off by the minister saying they are going to privatize. All we have is the minister’s advisory committee on home care told to comment on this. All we have is a reference to a 1994 study by the minister’s consultant, Connie Curran, indicating that privatization is not the way to go. That is what we have on our side of the argument and virtually all of the organizations. [interjection]

The minister makes reference to the VON. His government document says the VON is the big loser. I am quoting from the document, the Treasury Board document signed off by the minister December 16. Does the minister need a reference to the page on his document? He has it in front of him. It says the VON is a big loser in this process. We have done everything we can to try to save VON as a nonprofit organization. I have questioned the minister for years in the Estimates about the VON contract. I have sensed for some time with my home care committee, and I suggest the minister have a committee like mine of not only clients, but of all of the caregivers. I have learned much from this organization and these people. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson, I am having trouble hearing myself because of the minister.

Mr. Chairperson, I suggest the minister set up a committee that we have, that we meet with regularly, of not just home care providers, but of home care clients who advise us on this information. Perhaps the minister then will have a better appreciation of the issues involved. The minister referred to VON, and I digressed slightly, but the minister did refer from his seat to VON and the accusation that somehow we do not support VON when we have done everything possible in this Chamber to maintain that organization as an integral part of the home care system. We have worked very, very hard to maintain that organization, and we will continue to work hard to maintain VON as a service, because what the minister fails to say in a lot of his comments is that he has privatized the whole nursing service of home care in the city of Winnipeg. He is privatizing the whole nursing service in Winnipeg. He is privatizing it and he has destroyed the VON as we know it. If these plans come to fruition, I fear for that organization as a result of the minister’s plan to privatize dated December 16. His own plan said, the VON will be big losers in this process. I quote, big loser, VON.

An Honourable Member: It says that in the document. Losers, winners, losers.

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, it says that. The minister knows that. So the minister ought not to try to turn things around with respect to our comments on VON, because it is fairly clear where we stand on the VON. [interjection] No, I am just setting the record straight for the minister.

I am giving the minister an opportunity to come forward and provide us with information justifying supporting his decision to privatize home care. The minister made reference to the fact that we are captive of interest groups and we are captive of special groups. Well, all we are trying to do is represent the majority opinion at this point. All we are trying to do is represent what people tell us. You know, the minister ought to spend some time returning the kind of phone call--I do not know if the minister gets his chance to return the hundreds of calls, but he ought to spend some time returning some of the calls that I have to return every day with respect to this issue.

Will the minister table the studies, the documents, the supporting evidence as to why he has chosen in his signed off document dated December 16, 1995, to privatize home care? The minister’s plan to privatize home care, will he table his studies, will he allow us to have a meaningful debate in this regard, Mr. Chairperson?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 12 noon, this section of the Committee of Supply, in accordance with the rules, is recessed until 1 p.m.

The committee recessed at 12 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 1:07 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Before the recess, we were dealing with item 1.(b)(1). The staff can enter the Chamber if they are present.

Mr. Chomiak: Just to complete my question that I posed prior to the break, will the minister therefore table the--we know the minister has a We Care study done at Seven Oaks Hospital. It deals with a very minute portion of the population, a select group, Mr. Chairperson, but he has no recommendations, no study, no data, to justify his decision to privatize home care, his decision signed under his name December 16, 1995, to privatize home care.

Will the minister table his documentation and his information?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, on February 2, 1995, the honourable member for Kildonan joined me and a lot of nurses and doctors and health professionals in celebrating the release of the report of the project at Seven Oaks Hospital which was a hospital-based, home-care trial project, and the honourable member was there and spoke in guarded, but glowing, shall we say, terms of the outcome of that particular project.

* (1310)

I do not think I need to table the report because the honourable member has read it and probably reread it, but I would like to refer to some of the aspects of that report, which was a report of a joint project with a private company called We Care Home Health Services, and I think it was the Winnipeg franchise. That company, by the way, has about 40 franchises. I understand there are about 4,000 people, more than that, who work for that company. You would wonder how such growth could occur if clients were not pleased with the service. There has been growth in Drake, Medox, I understand, growth in the Olsten company, growth quite likely with the Central Health Company, as well, and other home health companies.

But here is a patient questionnaire. It is Appendix H to the report. I will read some of them, and I will not leave any out. There will be some that are not quite so positive, but certainly there will be some that are positive, too. The first one says, worked out 100 percent, replaced care I would get in the hospital. Emphasized benefit of someone (VON coming in on a regular basis). There were communication difficulties initially. The hospital would phone and say the patient was ready for discharge, and they were not ready. This happened on two occasions. I liked the program. Everything was okay. I was pleased with We Care’s nurse. Excellent. The government should have done this years ago. My husband does not like the hospital. He is much more comfortable here. Thanks for all your help, Theresa--social worker with Home Care--mother is not using a walker now. Very happy to have the opportunity to go home. We Care nurses were as discreet as possible, and I really appreciated this. I was generally satisfied with the project. I had some minor concerns regarding housekeeping. I cannot do my own care in the hospital like I can at home. I think it was a worthwhile project for cost-effective purposes, getting people into a less costly setting. I was very pleased with the care on my last admission. I believe a person heals better at home. At home you have got your TV shows and the better food.

I do not know why it is but every--end of quote, does not seem to matter where you go, nobody has a good thing to say about hospital food and yet I think some of the food in the hospital is very good. I am not a regular attender, but comments I get from patients is not such that hospital food does not live up to its not-so-great reputation. I think people generally, though, are more comfortable taking their meals in their homes, so I think that is what that comment is probably about.

You should have done this years ago. I am doing quite well, and I am trying very hard to look after myself, it is better that way.

Appendix 1 is a patient questionnaire, a surveyor’s comments and impressions. Daughter is stressed out but coping with formal supports and help of her own daughter. Family satisfied in general with overall services received from the hospital. Generally satisfied with the project. Overall, I felt there was general satisfaction. There were some communication difficulties. There was some indication that they felt pressure to take the patient home before they were ready. Even though they only rated overall satisfaction as a 3, they seemed to be quite satisfied with the program and were happy that he could go home early. Definitely satisfied with services. Very positive feedback. This discharge was smoother, especially with the nurse accompanying them home. He was very positive, effusive in praise and expressions of appreciation. Quite positive but seemed vague at times. Very positive experience. Wife expressed at length her satisfaction with the program; it was difficult to terminate the interview. This patient only received services from We Care, cleaning services provided were excellent. Son was pleased with all services received from the hospital. Family found patient’s admission to be a difficult time. Discharge team assisted them with their concerns for both parties. Very satisfied with service. Patient was very satisfied with services provided by the project, appreciated the discreetness of staff and confidentiality. Timing for being on project was great. A very successful discharge and linkage with a support system. Patient’s sister expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the project. Client was pleased with being involved with the project. As services were free, it is difficult to say what value the client might have placed on services if there was a charge. Overall, the patient is satisfied with the discharge. Patient remains in contact with Continuing Care worker. Patient stated that they were very pleased with the care on this admission. Patient carried on at length about the fact that this project should have been done a long time ago. It was difficult for a patient to evaluate services, given that she had very little to date, very pleased to be able to go home with the services, will be going to doctor’s office on Friday to have central line removed.

Mr. Chairman, those were some, perhaps all, of the report on the comments made by the patients, and I tried to say that whether we do it as well as we should or not, we should always try to make the patient or the client the focus of what we do. Sometimes we allow ourselves to move away from that a little bit and maybe put the interests of other people ahead of the interests of the client, and it is something that, it is a human nature sort of thing to do on occasion. We should always try to remind ourselves that we should maybe get away from that a little bit and remember to come back always to putting the concerns and needs of the client ahead of our own narrow interests.

The report, in the Executive Summary, says this: Historically, it has been the perception of patients and patients’ families that, once admitted to hospital, discharge would take place following the total recovery of the illness, that is the convalescent period was seen as part of the hospital stay. By the way, it needs to be noted that all work by We Care Home Health Services was provided under controls, regulations and protocols used in the hospital. I am told that early in that project, before a lot of people knew that it was underway, the daily rounds that are done in the hospital to identify patients who might be candidates for this particular program was participated in by a relatively small number of people, but I understand that once others had become aware of the program, people involved--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I am familiar with that report, and I am pleased that finally we have a recognition from the minister and the department of the need for a co-ordination and planning of discharge procedures. It has been something we have been advocating over and over again of this government and asking them to do something about home care to ensure that there is a more co-ordinated and a better approach to the system. I am appreciative that the minister actually, in reading those comments, is cognizant of the need for expanded community-based procedures.

* (1320)

I am also pleased that the minister made his comments about putting the client first, and I am glad that we are now dealing on that plane. It now makes the discussion much more relevant because now we can deal with the issues of privatization directly, now that the minister is bringing forward his arguments in favour of privatization, his arguments that were culminated in his signing off of his Treasury Board submission of December 16, 1995, wherein he recommended, and it was agreed that the government policy would be privatization, now we have an opportunity to debate the governing issues.

Now I take it from what the minister is presenting to us, that as a result of a pilot project engaged into between We Care and Seven Oaks Hospital, approved I might add by the deputy minister of Health, and I am still not certain who paid for that but that can be determined at some point, but now that we are looking at this particular study I guess the minister is saying he has not provided any documentation whatsoever to justify a decision to privatize. I now assume that he is telling us that the government case for privatization is summed up in this one study, this one controlled study, this one experiment, Mr. Chairperson, and I guess the minister is saying, because they did this one study with a handful of patients hand-picked at an institution that that entire process and study has now led the government to completely privatize the home care system, a system that has been in operation for 22 years.

It has been a public system that has its flaws but has worked most effectively, that has been named by the minister’s own report that he refers to on a regular basis in this Chamber, that the Price Waterhouse report has called the best home care system in North America. The minister is saying that his study, his We Care study is the reason that they are privatizing home care. The study undertaken by the minister with regard to We Care is the reason that they are privatizing.

Now, Mr. Chairperson, the experience of that study and of that review speaks volumes about what we should be doing in terms of better planning, better co-ordination, better utilization of resources and better care, certainly. But it does not say that completely privatizing the entire home care system is the way to achieve that. I suggest that that same kind of activity and results could be achieved if the VON was offered the opportunity under the same controlled circumstances to do the same thing, but they were not. I find it very, very interesting that the minister takes his pilot project done by We Care and that becomes the justification for the privatization of the entire system.

Mr. Chairperson, is that what the minister is saying? Is the minister saying that he has this study to talk about the need for better planning, better co-ordination? The fact that it was done by We Care has now justified the entire transformation of the system to a private system, and the dividing up of the city of Winnipeg and four contracts, one to We Care, one to Medox, one to Central Health. Is that what the minister is saying when he refers to those documents? Or is the minister saying that he recognizes the need for planning co-ordination? Does the minister recognize the value of the present home care system as it exists with its nonfragmented service, with its co-ordination ability, with its assessment ability, with its ability to deliver a wide range of service?

Is the minister now recognizing the fact that we can achieve the same ends and the same goals by working within a pre-existing system, or is he saying he is taking the results of this study and somehow interpreting the results of that study as justification for a complete privatization of the home care system as we know it?

Mr. McCrae: No, indeed the honourable member asked me in his previous question about the Seven Oaks project, and I was giving him a bit of a report on that but, no, indeed, that is only one small, actually, dimension respecting decisions that government is making and the direction the government is going.

We have obviously--the honourable member has referred to his report, the Price Waterhouse report, the NDP one, which we do not know. I have not learned yet what we paid. It may be that $5 million U.S. is low or high, I am not sure which, and it may be that some of the principles of Price Waterhouse are from Dallas and New York. But I do not know that for sure, and we are going to check that. The honourable member can assist on that.

There are a number of things that have been said and done and studied and reviewed and work-grouped and implemented and all the rest of it over the last number of years, but certainly the Price Waterhouse report stands out as a report which identifies the many areas where improvements could be made. It is in this area where--it is disturbing that the honourable member’s policy and that of his party is to go back to the system we had in the first place when his own reputed multimillion dollar report suggests that there are things that do need to be addressed. And the honourable member stands and says, just leave everything back the way it was.

The report suggests that we permit the dilution of services. This is NDP policy. I find that somewhat strange under all the circumstances but their policy is also to impose against our senior citizens and disabled people, user fees; waiting periods prior to receiving nonprofessional services. User fees during the initial period of service and limiting hours in which services are provided. Those sorts of things would be the last things I would want to consider. In fact, we are not considering those things. The NDP wants it. We do not. We have a higher regard for the clients than that.

But that is the one report that is out there. I have produced the home care demonstration projects during committee meeting number five report. I have produced the Seven Oaks project report. I can point to a project that is underway now with respect to backup. Well, I do not know what the status is at this moment what with the home care workers being on strike at the moment, but I am sure Central Health company is involved.

I told the honourable member of a report earlier where the government people, by walking off the job, have simply turned it over to the private companies. The private companies are actively engaged in assisting clients as we try to get through this difficult period without an essential services component. The union will not even give us an essential services component to help people who desperately need these services.

There is the Central Health project which is providing backup. That was the subject of a tender, and a number of companies, profit and nonprofit, private ones though, lined up and bid and the Central company was the successful bidder. They are assisting us in providing, when we are not on strike that is, 24-hour, seven-days-a-week service; quicker response to the need to discharge people from hospital and backup service for a member of the regular staff when they are on holidays or on strike or sick time or whatever.

There is the tender that was done for St. Boniface Hospital. There again the privates all lined up and the private Victorian Order of Nurses got that contract for the home IV. Those are a few. We are presently, pursuant to all of these reports and things and recommendations, negotiating with a personal care home for the provision of home care services there.

There is the focus, the Ten Ten Sinclair. We have a contract with them. That is a private situation, where that is a contract arrangement. The VON itself has a contract arrangement. I have made available to honourable members the report of the Continuing Care advisory committee’s report along with the letter from two of its members setting their point of view forth, which says it is our understanding that this committee did not advise against contracting out a portion of present services. Pursuant to, further to the Home Care Demonstration Project, that project made a report to the Continuing Care advisory committee.

They made a presentation and, from that presentation, the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program on page 25 quotes the department’s work restructuring report, the one I am about to table, and says contracting out service delivery among multiple providers is not advisable due to difficulty ensuring quality of service and difficulty co-ordinating across multiple services. The only trouble with that quote, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a key word that has been mistranscribed or that word is in error, because what the report says, the home care demonstration project report said in that presentation to the advisory committee is contracting all service delivery among multiple providers is not advisable due to the difficulty, et cetera. The word in the Continuing Care advisory committee report on page 25, instead of saying contracting out, should say contracting all. It is a very, very significant and important error in transcription which, of course, the honourable member for Kildonan quotes it and says, well, this is what your own advisory committee says, except that the advisory committee report has a typing error in it, and a rather important one at that.

* (1330)

With that, Mr. Chairman, and a comment about the pagination of this report, the pagination is incorrect, but the pages are. Chronologically it is right, but there are some errors in the numbering, but the pages are in order, and I am tabling the Home Care Demonstration Project advisory committee presentation. This is the work restructuring document referred to by the chairman of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program, and I now table that in this committee.

So there is another report. But honourable members who are quick to jump on something that is a misunderstanding because of a typographical error, there is a difference between the word “out” and “all” in this context, there is a very significant difference. Of course, that does not matter sometimes to members of the New Democratic Party. However, that is a fact and I now table that and it will be clear for honourable members to see. I will return--

Point of Order

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the minister tabling the document. I wonder if the Chair could advise whether or not it is required that when tabling is done that there be three copies provided, and the copies are available therefore to people for whom the document is being tabled. I do not believe three copies were provided either today or yesterday, and I wonder if the Chair could indicate the appropriate procedures of the house.

Mr. Chairperson: It is not required that the three copies be made, but we have taken it upon ourselves to have it photocopied. You will have your copy in a few minutes. The honourable member did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister to conclude his statement.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the honourable member for Crescentwood. We do have additional copies that could be made available, but I understand the Clerk’s Office is doing it, but I will undertake that in future when we table we will table multiple copies.

Mr. Sale: I wonder if I might have leave to sit down with my colleague and ask questions from that position rather than up here in the high benches.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) have leave to take a seat in the front row to ask the questions?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, Mr. Chairman, he does, but I was not finished with my answer.

Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been granted for the honourable member to take his position up front. The honourable minister’s time had expired.

Mr. McCrae: Oh, it had.

Mr. Chairperson: That is what I had told you.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, referring back to the Price Waterhouse study which I think the minister will find costs somewhat less than $100,000 and not the millions that he is putting on the record for some purposes of which I am not clear. I think he would recognize that governments of all stripes call for reports and they get good advice and they get strange advice and they get advice with which they agree and they get advice with which they do not agree. They get impractical advice and they get sound advice, and a report from an external consultant, as in the case of the Price Waterhouse report or the Connie Curran reports, are just that, they are advice. They do not constitute government policy. [interjection] I am not sure what the minister is trying to say from his seat, I did not hear him. I would simply observe and ask the minister to at least have the elementary courtesies of debate not to confuse government policy with the recommendations that are in reports from third parties.

The Price Waterhouse report indicated, as the minister knows, many significant issues that needed to be addressed in Manitoba home care. Our government was well aware that after 10 or 12 years any program that has grown as rapidly as Home Care had grown to that point, and it has grown much more since, develops some arteriosclerosis, perhaps, that needs addressing. That was precisely why the previous government commissioned an external review of that program with a view to strengthening it, to making it sufficiently flexible and adaptable that it could deal with the new realities of the situation, both the technical abilities to deliver a variety of home care that was not possible under previous technologies, but became possible in the late 1980s. I think, for example, of home dialysis. There are other programs which we began to deliver in the home which we could not do in the early days of home care for technical reasons.

So the Price Waterhouse report was an opportunity to have a thorough review of a program. Unfortunately, for reasons of history, our government was defeated, and we were not in a position to implement actions that we might wish to implement as a result of that report. Those actions may or may not have followed the detail of any recommendations, but the purpose of the recommendations was to have before us some options.

Now, I think the first point is important to have the minister be completely forthright in his remarks that the having of recommendations from a third party does not constitute government policy. I am sure that he would not wish to have his government interpret it as having a policy of every consultant that has ever made a report to his government. Some of their advice may be useful and some of it may not, and that has always been the case and always will be the case. So he ought not to represent the views of Price Waterhouse and their staff in their report as the views of the New Democratic government because, quite specifically, they were not and are not, and he should cease from attempting to twist the record and to make it appear to people that the NDP government of Howard Pawley, for example, was in favour of user fees which we were not and are not. So I would ask the minister to be, perhaps, more circumspect in his use of the findings of reports and interpret them as interesting, useful, indicative, instructive, but not as the policy of the government in question.

What has always troubled me since the minister began to read extensively from that report is why he sees it as so relevant 10 years later. The report identified many important issues. I would have thought what might be more relevant for the minister to comment on were the actions of his government that were undertaken to address the issues raised in the Price Waterhouse report. They were important issues in many other jurisdictions, and I think of British Columbia, for example, as one that led the way in pioneering aggressive home care programs through the Royal Victoria Hospital in Victoria, B.C. They showed that it was possible to do many of the things that were shown to be useful in the limited demonstration project which was undertaken at Seven Oaks, which has nothing much to do with private or public, and everything to do with aggressive attempts to provide quality, comprehensive, continuous, appropriate home care for people who could benefit from that program.

I would like to ask the minister if he could indicate to us what actions his government undertook from 1988 to 1994 or 1995, if he chooses, to address the issues that were identified in the Price Waterhouse report instead of using the report as what he considers a tool to somehow cast doubt on the policies or views of the previous government that commissioned that report. What did the minister do to address the real problems, or did he simply let them sit and fester and fester, and fester so that the system we have today is not in better shape than it was when he inherited it, but is in fact in worse shape? Now he proposes to solve that problem by a wholesale privatization. Let him not suggest that the word “all” is an important distinction from his government’s perspective, because clearly the intention of the Treasury Board document is to privatize all of the services in Winnipeg.

* (1340)

Now, he may wish to split hairs and suggest we are going to do it slowly. The point is he is going to do it, and the slowly or quickly is only a matter of relative debate, I suppose, as to the timing. I would appreciate the minister indicating what things he and his department did from 1988 to the present time to address the issues that he is so fond of quoting from in the Price Waterhouse report and to use that report in the way that it could have been used, which was as a document to help provide guidance to strengthening what is still termed by the same company some years later as the best home care system in North America. What did he do to address all those issues which he so fondly read out in the letter that he read into the record at great length yesterday in which he raised his eyebrows and arched his brow to indicate his extreme disapproval of things that were going on? If those things were indeed going on, I disapprove of them, too. What did he do to improve and strengthen the delivery of home care during his years up until the Treasury Board submission of December 1995 when he decided to abandon ship and privatize the whole works?

Mr. McCrae: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of questions there. The honourable member is very articulate in his delivery in this House and puts the questions well, but there are some inconsistencies which need to be pointed out. He is very defensive about the Price Waterhouse report and I guess if I were him I would be, too.

The NDP were thrown out of office and that is why they could not impose the user fees on people. That is why people were saved from having massive cuts in their home care services. The people of Manitoba were saved from waiting periods prior to receiving nonprofessional services, saved from user fees during the initial period of service and limiting hours in which services are provided, saved from all of that by Jim Walding and saved from all of that by the people of Manitoba who unceremoniously threw the NDP out of office. They have not been in office since and I dare say they are not going to be for a long, long time.

But the honourable member does make my point for me on that part of it. What I am trying to do is to show the double standard that we sometimes see around here. You cannot, on the one hand, have a report that you commissioned behind your back like this that calls for user fees and then go out and scare the clients of our home care system that somehow the present government is intent on bringing in user fees and cutting services. But there it is in the Price Waterhouse report. Now the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) did not tell us how much that report cost and he knows. I do not, but he does. He was a part of that government and he knows how much the cost, he knows how many Americans were involved with Price Waterhouse. He knows who they are and he will not tell us, and I think he should.

There are lots of reports put out by lots of governments, and the honourable member does make my point. He may ultimately some day be able to convince somebody along the way that, no, it was not our intention to bring in the user fees and cut the services and dilute services and stuff like that as they have paid presumably millions to get that sort of advice for. The argument they make today is, you paid Connie Curran millions so you must be wanting to follow that advice. Well, you see, we can throw the same 4, 3.8, whatever it is--

An Honourable Member: Plus $800,000 in expenses.

Mr. McCrae: American tax-free, do not forget, and then the fancy and expensive, expense accounts, stuff like that. Did they not stay at the dorm at St. Boniface Hospital? I think they did. In any event I hear what the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is saying. I appreciate what he is saying because I know why he is saying those things. I said some of the same things myself, those being there have been a number of experiences, a number of reports, a number of improvements. I do not think anybody is going to argue that we have got the best right here in Manitoba. I am not. The honourable member chooses and his colleagues choose to interpret from my comments that, oh, it is a terrible system. Well, it is not. Everybody agrees, we have got patients and clients who are getting very good care under the home care program, that was at least until before the strike began.

So let us cut away all the--I have a friend in Brandon who says, cut the crap, and let us get to the real issue, that no program is perfect, even though ours is very, very good. The honourable members opposite and their friends mislead you too, Mr. Chairman, by saying, well, some big master plan that everything is going to be privatized. There is no question but that a better mix can bring out better efficiencies and there ought, at some point, somehow, to have a mechanism whereby government retains control of standards and enforcement of those standards.

It was not the previous government that brought in the self-managed care, it was this government, and here again, anything good, the union leaders look very suspiciously at, and of course the New Democrats have to as well because of that organic fusion that I have mentioned in the past. Actually it was Professor Allen Mills that mentioned--and you should not plagiarize. Because of that fusion they cannot even be effusive in their support of such concepts as self-managed care. Do you know why? Because that is a privatizing, self-managed care is a privatizing of services. They have trouble here because the VON are working with an untendered contract. I do not know, was Price Waterhouse tendered? It may have been. I think the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) can tell us whether it was a tendered contract or not.

We make efforts, it is not an effort overnight to fix all the problems. So we make efforts to improve our home care service, and members opposite, for whatever reason, we guess at what those reasons are, Mr. Chairman, without going beyond the borders of parliamentary nicety, for whatever their reasons, they do not want to see improvements because as long as you have got a home care that is not working as well as it should, you can criticize the Tories, and we have got plenty of that. I think any government is going to get that in the time of a program growing like ours and with the growing pains it has. So at the end of the day, the NDP, regardless of their own reports that urge contracting out, come out with the policy statement, let us go back to the system we had in the first place.

We have got the member for Crescentwood acknowledging today--his friend next to him will not, not today at least, but he certainly did for the last few years--but today the member for Crescentwood acknowledges, yes, perfection has eluded us thus far, and there is room for improvement in even the best program in North America, and I agree. So there is not that much at the end of the day that me and the member for Crescentwood disagree about until it comes to philosophical issues. This is not a health issue. The union has made it very clear it is not a health issue, they have said so. It is totally a philosophical issue.

* (1350)

My colleagues opposite, they like to accuse Tories of having a philosophical approach to things as if they do not. I cannot quite understand that sort of thinking. It is okay for us to have our philosophical, dogmatic, blinkered mindset of a left-wing, socialist-communist approach to things, and the communism has been enunciated for us by the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), so we can include that in the list of isms that there are over there with the New Democrats. So this communist-socialist, whatever, approach is the one they want to urge, and then they say, oh, but we are not philosophical about it.

Mr. Chairman, give me a break. It is just not believable when you come across like that. At least the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), I respect him, I do not like his views, but I respect him because he does not even blush when he puts forward his left-wing approach. That is okay, he is entitled to that.

An Honourable Member: It is in the heart.

Mr. McCrae: Right. He feels it, he believes it, and so how can I fault him except other than to disagree with him? How can I fault him for having those views? I am critical about what it means and everything like that, but, on a personal basis, surely the honourable member is entitled to have his view, and so is the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), but basically we do not really agree or disagree on a lot of the background here. Reports come and go, they say all kinds of things and we, he and I, were elected to represent the point of view we feel is the most appropriate one to represent, and that is what we are all doing here today.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister persists in implying that the recommendations of a report prepared by a private consulting company were or are the policies of the NDP government, and I would simply put on the record one more time that this is irresponsible on the minister’s part, that it does not reflect reality and it does not, certainly, forward public policy. There is no particular value in reiterating, beyond this statement, that reports of private consultants to government are just that, they are no more than the report. It is when government adopts a direction that it becomes government or party or whatever policy, public policy. This government has adopted a public policy of thorough going privatization on the basis of no data, no recommendations, no information and, in fact, in the face of strong recommendations to the contrary from its own advisory committee, from one of the world’s foremost gerontologists, Evelyn Shapiro, and in the face of those members of vital consumer groups, such as the Manitoba League for Persons with Disabilities, all of which are telling him he is going down the wrong road.

Let me go to the report of the advisory committee on page 6. The advisory committee is chaired by one of Manitoba’s most competent advocates in the area of home care, and she writes very well and she thinks equally well. She knows, as I would hope the minister and his staff would know, that what Price Waterhouse said 10 years ago and what Connie Curran has said and what the advisory committee have said is true, that it would be folly, that it would be dangerous, and in the words of this committee, it would be irresponsible to transfer the present program to a Home Care Agency.

Now, Mr. Chairperson, this is not even contracting out. This is just the transfer to the Crown corporation of which we have heard nothing, in spite of the fact that tenders are about to go out for privatization. This organization is not even saying that we are ready to go to a tender. They are saying, we do not even have standards and directions to tell the Crown agency how to deliver and protect the services which are now being delivered without the standards in place. He has had approaching nine years in government in which to address these issues, and while he can have a good time reflecting back that our government should have solved these problems in the seven years between 1981 and 1988, and we should have, indeed, continued in government to make progress as we would have liked to have done, but he has had a very long time to address these issues. Can he respond to this very important challenge No. 2 put to him by his own advisory committee, which does not say that we are just concerned about this or we think you should think about this?

It says, the committee would consider it irresponsible to transfer the present program to a Home Care Agency, i.e., the Crown corporation, without first articulating clear program standards that form the basis for measuring program activities, approaches and activities in all regions. The committee goes on to reflect on a question that I asked the minister in the House, I believe it was yesterday, that is, we do not even know what the core services that are going to be funded are. We do not know what is going to comprise them, who is going to deliver them and, in fact, in looking at his Treasury Board submission, we do not even know what portion of those core services are going to be funded entirely by government and what portion are going to be funded by users.

We have asked this question a number of times, Mr. Chairperson, and I would appreciate the minister’s response to the advisory committee’s statement that it is irresponsible on the government’s part to transfer this responsibility even to a Crown corporation, let alone to proceed with privatization of the actual delivery, without putting in place many of the pieces that his government has not put in place in their eight years in office.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member referred to the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program response to the Strategic Redirection of Home Care, page 6 and they quoted: The advisory committee would consider it irresponsible to transfer the present program to a Home Care Agency without first articulating clear program standards that form the basis for measuring program approaches and activities in all regions.

I agree with that statement. I have never disagreed with that statement, and I agree with it today and that is the policy of our government. So I would like the honourable member to be aware of that. We have no disagreement. This is so reminiscent of the latest election campaign where there was sound and fury daily signifying nothing with respect to the health debate because members opposite, me and to a large extent, too, the Liberal Party, were all just rhetorically all over the place, but we were all saying precisely the same things with respect to health care. So all this debate is very interesting and everything and probably useful once in a while, but we do not disagree on a lot of things. Clear away all the politics and rhetoric that happens around here, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), even the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and others, we all agree about wanting to have a good health care system. I mean, who wants to campaign on the platform that we want to have a bad health care system? I do not know anybody, that is for sure.

An Honourable Member: You did not dare campaign on that platform, did you?

Mr. McCrae: Well, who would? Who would?

An Honourable Member: Pharmacare, eye care, home care, hospitals.

Mr. McCrae: I believe the floor is mine right now, so when members talk, then I will try to be quiet and when I am talking, he should maybe return the favour. The point is, for the average citizen out there, no wonder they get a little cynical about politics because they say, well, you know, they are all the same. That is what a lot of people say to me when I go to the doorsteps. They say, you are all the same, you are all the same, I am voting for you, of course, but you guys are all the same, and gals.

* (1400)

So what are we spending all this time for? Because the honourable members opposite are trying to demonstrate to somebody that they care more than everybody else. Well, what a crock, with all due respect. Is that parliamentary? I think that is such a new expression it probably has not found its way into the book yet. In any event, I will choose some other word. Baloney. I think that is okay. The fact is I do not, at the end of the day, question the honourable members opposite the fact that they as individual people care about other people, I think they do. Sometimes that belief is stretched somewhat when you see alliances formed and fusions, organic and otherwise, between members opposite and some of their friends. At the end of the day, I still think we are all decent human beings, and we all care about our fellow citizens.

What are we really doing here? There is a power struggle. The NDP cannot stand being thrown out of office in the first place and then have to stay out for two more terms after that. This is hard on New Democrats. [interjection] I look at the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), and I say, what of them, Mr. Chairman, and what of them? Liberals have had their contribution to make over the years. One of my best advisers, unfortunately not with us any more, the late Douglas L. Campbell, one of those people I can call my friend--[interjection] He was known as a Liberal and yet there are many latter-day Liberals will say, well, he was more conservative than you are, McCrae.

Unfortunately, since the advent of the Pawley New Democrats, the left wing has kind of taken over to the everlasting consternation of the honourable Leader, present Leader of the Opposition who is just trying to be, I think, a moderate Leader in a modern society, but he has got a party full of whackos, if I may use--is that unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman? Maybe it is. He has got a caucus full of left leaning people who put their ideology--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The minister, I guess, is directly asking the question of the Chair when he starts putting words on the record. It is not necessarily the words that will be chosen to be unparliamentary, it is the context in which they may be put. If they do give us a problem with decorum, they could be also ruled unparliamentary, so I would ask the minister if he could choose his words very carefully. We have had a very good day so far.

Mr. McCrae: Just so the Beauchesne people do not have to write a new edition, I will just withdraw that, Mr. Chairman, and apologize to my friends because it is really not a very nice thing to say.

But there are some tendencies amongst honourable members opposite that make life very difficult for their Leader because they pull themselves away from the people, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party really would like to see his party closer to the people. When the lefties in the party pull everybody so far away from the people, you get into the camp of the union leaders and you get yourself out of the camp of the people of Manitoba, and you run into some problems with that. I think any party that does that usually ends up as a second or third party on a permanent basis. They do not really ever aspire again to the level where they can claim to represent the majority of the population. So, at least, they are honest. The honourable member for Tuxedo--Tuxedo, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is unabashed, and that is okay.

An Honourable Member: Tuxedo?

Mr. McCrae: No, the member for Transcona is unabashed.

An Honourable Member: Tuxedo? The honourable member for Tuxedo is often unabashed, I agree.

Mr. McCrae: I think it is the member for Crescentwood who is always giving me lectures about childishness, and maybe he should back off right about now.

So where was I? I was asked, Mr. Chairman, about all of what it is that I have, and I am trying to tell honourable members that I have got report after report after report, all of which I have tabled or referred to. The NDP report calls for user fees and, sorry, but I am just not going to agree with that particular report. There are things in some of my own reports that I am not going to agree with, in the same way that the member for Crescentwood said he would not agree with some of the things in his reports.

So maybe we can start from there. They are looking for some major report that comes out and says, you have to privatize everything. Well, I do not think you are going to find that anywhere. It is a means to an end. Some of the measures that we announce are a means to an end. They are not an end in and of themselves, which is what members opposite want to put across here. We have a combination private-public system of home care delivery. Some of our people are government people; some of them are private people, notably the nursing component, which is VON, private and nonprofit.

It is the introduction of any kind of profit system that members have trouble with, and yet New Democrats support it. The results and what flows from the Seven Oaks project, which was a private company and was involved with that--they supported that, albeit they had to be a little careful about that because of some of their fused friends. They had to be really careful about that.

I see the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) is really uncomfortable with this, and he is really uncomfortable with self-managed care, too. It was like, I do not know what, it was a very difficult thing to get that honourable member to say publicly: Yes, I support self-managed care. He could not say it so loud because the union friends would hear him, and this was going to be a problem for him. But those few people in Manitoba who are accessing self-managed care, which is another form of privatization, are really finding that beneficial for them.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, the logical inconsistencies in the ministers last statement are numerous and, further, most of the minister’s comments had nothing to do with the question as posed by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) to the minister concerning the very specific recommendations and comments of the minister’s own advisory committee. Yet, again, another body and another organization does not agree with the government’s policy on privatization, one of many, one of a majority, and the list goes on and on.

I think that what is happening in the province is that the government and the minister have adopted their own agenda with respect to health reform, and it is their intention to move that agenda through, regardless of the consequences. It is their intention to privatize, and it is very, very interesting, and it is sad that the minister does not understand the significance of introducing profit and privatization to a health care system that to this point in time has been largely nonprofit and largely nonprivate. The minister does not seem to recognize the benefits of a universal system that is wholly within the realm of the public sector.

Now, I know the minister likes American reports; he hired Connie Curran, Mr. Chairperson. He paid her $3.8 million, plus $800,000 in expenses, tax-free, U.S. Surely the minister recognizes that 33 cents on every dollar in the U.S. fragmented system goes towards administration, goes towards profits. Would that money not be better utilized in a public system? Would that money be not better utilized going toward direct patient care rather than going into the pockets of the owners of those companies, and, Mr. Chairperson--and so it is disconcerting that the minister does not recognize this.

We on this side of the House are forced with regret to move

THAT this committee condemn the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) for his failure to provide any research or recommendation to support the contracting out of home care services to private, for-profit companies for his failure to respond to the concerns of clients, organizations, workers or experts in the field about the impact of privatizing home care, and for his failure to lay out a long-term strategy for community health reform.

* (1410)

Motion presented.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is in order. Could I ask the committee for just a five-minute recess?

Mr. Chomiak: I concur, Mr. Chairperson, under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairperson: The committee will recess for just five minutes.

The committee recessed at 2:12 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 2:25 p.m.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, it is with regret that we bring a motion of this kind into this Chamber, but it is our duty as the opposition to do everything that we can to try to improve the health care situation for all Manitobans, and the failure of the government and this minister in particular to undertake his duties leaves us no choice but to move a motion of this kind. For days we have been questioning the minister about the decision to privatize home care. For days we have been met by stonewalling and nonanswers; today is no exception.

The minister is unable or unwilling to justify his decision made to privatize home care, and that is intolerable for the citizens of Manitoba. It is intolerable that a government would make as major a policy change and initiative as this and not have rationale and not have an analysis to justify the decision.

This is seen in government responses to the issue. It is seen in the attempts by the government to deflect attention away from their decision and try to move it on to everyone else. In this debate and in this Chamber we have seen everyone blamed in the opposition, in the union movement, the academics that question it, the committees that question it. Everyone is at fault, Mr. Chairperson, because they just do not understand. They just do not understand. How can they understand when the minister is not able to provide any evidence, any documentation, any support for his decision to privatize?

That is regretful, and, in fact, in the absence of that evidence, we are left only with several very interesting points. Firstly, the We Care company made a proposal to the government in 1993 that exactly mirrors the government decision to privatize. Secondly, we know that the only company to get a contract to do a pilot project, a hand-picked pilot project, was that same company, We Care. So we ask: Where is the initiative, where is the direction coming to this government to privatize? Where is the direction coming from? It is not coming from the community; it is not coming from the workers; it is not coming from the clients; it is not coming from academia; it is not coming from any of the studies; it is not coming from the minister’s advisory group; it is not coming even from the minister’s own consultant, Connie Curran, who recommends against it.

There is not a justification for this minister and this government’s policy to privatize home care. Equally unfortunate is the fact that there is a lack of a long-term strategy for community health reform. We have been waiting. Do not forget there are nine years that separate the election of this government to today and only this year do we see transition. We see a transition committee and transition funds. It has taken nine years to put in place transition to community resources. We have seen some initiatives in the community area, but virtually eight years, I correct myself, we have seen virtually no movement towards community services. Indeed, we have seen a retrenchment, and the minister can cite jurisdiction after jurisdiction after jurisdiction.

Did you ever wonder, Mr. Chairman, why health care is so controversial in the province of Manitoba? Do you ever wonder whether it may not be as a result of a lack of competence on the part of this government to deliver health care? Has it ever been considered, and I think it has been considered by Manitobans, that one of the reasons there is so much controversy is the fact that this minister and this government have been unable to adequately manage health care in the province of Manitoba and have been unable to manage health care, particularly in the area of community health reform and more particularly in the area of home care services?

* (1430)

Controversy just does not arise as a result of what we in the opposition say. It comes from more than these benches. Controversy and disquiet with what this government is doing does not emanate from these benches. It is only reflected from this side of the House, reflected from the community, reflected from our constituents, reflected from Manitobans in general. It is Manitobans who are saying that this government’s health reform is poorly administered, poorly understood and, frankly, off the rails. It is not the opposition who are starting these stories; we are only reflecting them. Through our voices and through our efforts in this chamber do we reflect the view of Manitobans.

It is no better illustrated than in the government’s ill-conceived plan to privatize home care. Again, one of the reasons that the public is skeptical of the government’s efforts is the fact that the government has no data, no information, no studies, no justification for what they are doing. Why would they dare to completely upset a system that while it needs some change, that has always been said, does not need to be turned on its head, completely turned around, turned into a private system as the minister has proposed? Why have they chosen to do that? That is the salient question throughout these Estimates. It has been the salient question ever since the House commenced and I suspect will be the main issue and the main question during the course of the strike and during the course of the rest of the session to come. Why have they chosen to do what they have done when they have no justification for it? And I dare say, there are many, many aspects of this issue that have yet to be answered by the government. What is the impact of the We Care company? What impact and input have they had into this decision? Why will the minister not tell us? Why will they not come forward and document it?

Again, if it is a good idea, convince us, convince Manitobans. But, Mr. Chairperson, that is not the case. What we are seeing and what has happened is the government’s ideological drive to privatize has resulted in a strike action, has resulted in home care services and clients by the thousands being put in a very difficult position. The strike could end tomorrow if the minister could finally just say, no more privatization, we will go back, we will study it, we will hold public hearings, we will document all of our reasons, we will have a debate in this province, we will not privatize for sake of privatization, we will keep an open mind, we will convince you Manitobans.

If the minister would do that there would be no strike. The minister could have his staff here to answer questions, Mr. Chairperson, and most important, the patient, Manitobans whom we work for, the people for whom we sit in this Chamber and represent, those people will have restored to them the kind of quality health care in the community that they deserve, the kind of quality health care that all Manitobans expect.

But as long as the government persists in its ideological move to privatize, as long as the government persists in its wrong-headed decision, its unjustified decision to privatize, can the government be surprised, Mr. Chairperson, that there is opposition? Can the government be surprised that the clients are not happy, that the League of the Physically Handicapped is not happy, that virtually every single organization and group involved in this field has not been happy?

In condemning the actions of this minister, Mr. Chairperson, we are hoping that we are bringing to the attention of Manitobans the failures of this minister and this government to adequately deal with the home care situation, to adequately provide information, to adequately justify their decision, to adequately care for their clients, for the patients for whom we all work, and, in any way, shape or form, to provide for an enhanced or improved community health reform, something that all members of this House are striving for, but which has been absent for eight or nine years in the policy of this government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairperson, I am disappointed in my honourable colleagues, who tell me how disappointed they are, for bringing forward a resolution or motion like the one we have before us here in this committee today, aside altogether from whatever it is that motivates honourable members opposite that is not mentioned in the resolution. There certainly are not any facts, and that is where the folly of what they are doing, the weakness of their position, shines through very clearly.

There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, but that change will evoke debate. It will evoke reaction, especially for those who have an interest of their own to protect. That is not surprising. When the honourable member says I should not be surprised, he is right. I am not surprised that New Democrats, their union colleagues and others will have--[interjection] Well, the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) scoffs. He is the former head of the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union. What can you expect from a union boss who sits as the Leader of the Opposition of this province? The organic fusion that has been referred to is certainly there. It is certainly there.

Again, members opposite--[interjection] It is not a term that I have coined, Mr. Chairman. It is a term coined by Professor Allen Mills. That is where the phrase comes from. It was not me. As I understand it, Professor Allen Mills knows as much about the NDP and the union movement as I do, if not more.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I think he knows more.

Mr. McCrae: So the Leader of the Opposition suggests he knows more and that is quite likely, and the fact is that the fusion is there. It is that fusion that was the beginning of the CCF, which became the New Democratic Party. It is not new anymore, so they may be looking at that situation too at some point, I do not know. In any event, the resolution comes as no surprise to me because I do not think members opposite have not been particularly supportive of me all along. So where is the big surprise?

Mr. Doer: Do not take it personally.

Mr. McCrae: The honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) asks me not to take it personally, and I will not. I am saddened, of course, but that is to be expected, I would think, when people I respect feel that way about me. I often do not agree with them, but, as I was saying earlier in relation to the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), I do not agree with him, but I respect his right and I respect him when he puts forward his views. I respect him a little more than some of the others, actually, because he does not even blush when he puts across some of the things he puts across. So the man clearly has the courage of his convictions and is not afraid to be out there. Goofy as some of the positions that he may have might be, he has the courage to stand up and put them on the record. He might think my positions are goofy too, and I think that I am entitled here, and elsewhere, to put my position forward.

* (1440)

So I guess my disappointment has more to do with the unwillingness of the New Democratic Party to join the real world, the unwillingness of the New Democratic Party to get into step with what is going on in this world in the ’90s, the unwillingness of the New Democratic Party to understand that the world is changing. They want everything to fit into the little box that they built for this world some 50 years ago, and it is not like that. I cannot have everything the way I might like to see it because the world may be moving a little faster than even I am able to keep up with, but I think I am doing a little better job keeping up with developments in this world than my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. That is why they are over there, and that is why we are over here.

We have recognized, Mr. Chairman, that there are changes going on in this world. There are some things that are very, very important to us that we want to preserve. We do not want to lose them, we do not want to punish future generations either, and the difference between the approach being taken by my honourable colleagues opposite and myself is that if they have a regard for future generations, it does not show in their fiscal policy positions, it does not show in their idea of planning for the future. All it shows is that we will do what needs to be done today to elect a New Democrat or to re-elect a New Democrat or whatever, but never mind about who gets hurt along the way, never mind about the price the future generations should have to pay for what New Democrats want to impose on us.

So that is why I feel some sadness because I think that those people who forged the CCF in the first place were more visionary than the honourable ladies and gentlemen sitting opposite: the J.S. Woodsworths and the Stanley Knowleses and people like that and the Tommy Douglases.

Mr. Doer: They all believed in nonprofit health care

Mr. McCrae: They all believed in some of the things honourable members opposite are talking about, but they also were believing those things at a time when those things were something that were more acceptable to the general population. They believed in those things at a time when governments were borrowing and taxing more than at any other period in the history of mankind. It is easy to believe in those things when you are going out on the world markets and borrowing money. It is easy to believe in those things when you are quite unabashed about taxing the people. I think it was 1987 when we experienced the greatest tax grab in the history of Manitoba. Those were different times than we have today. In those days, politicians were quite willing just to go around finding out what this group, that group, and the other group wanted, and then to go on the world markets, borrow the money, and deliver on the promises made in response to the demands of the various groups. We think that the various organizations representing consumers and providers ought to be part of the process, but there out to be some recognition on the part of everyone, Mr. Chairman, that we live in a real world today. The world is, indeed, changing. We are working in the context of living within our means.

I think that Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, J. S. Woodsworth and others probably believe ultimately in living within our means. I remember hearing speeches from the olden days that said in bad times you can borrow some money and in good times you can pay back what you borrowed. Things went a little bit funny there afterward, Mr. Chairman, because New Democratic and Liberal governments even in good times were borrowing and taxing. The history is all there.

Mr. Doer: Mulroney, Kim Campbell.

Mr. McCrae: My honourable colleague the Leader of the Opposition refers to Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. They served their purpose, and they served their terms and placed their record before the public, and the public made a judgment about that in the same way the public made a judgment in 1988 in the province of Manitoba. It was Jim Walding who made it possible for the people of Manitoba to make its judgment on the government of the day, the Doer-Pawley government of that era. The era is over. The people said so back in 1988. Surely honourable members opposite at least respect the principle of democracy. The people of this province said out with the New Democrats and they elected somebody else and they have done it twice since. We have to take that mandate very seriously. We have to respect the needs of the population. The population said live within your means, do a good job, provide the services that people need and do it for a long, long time. There are people who are going to need those services for a long, long time. The difference between the position put forward by honourable members opposite and the position that I represent on this side of the House is one of vision. Members opposite do not have that and members on this side do.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) should remember that you just cannot do what your left-wing colleagues tell you to do. You have to listen to what the people have to say; that is what we have been attempting to do. I am the first to admit, Mr. Chairman, these are not easy times. It is not an easy time to make changes in our institutions and to try to make progress, but those things have to be done.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I just want to put a few words on the record with respect to the motion. Over the last couple of days there has been a lot of questions that have been put forward to the minister in regard to reports. When I had the opportunity to question him specifically at the beginning of my questions, I had indicated that the information was very valuable. The response that I had received was one that there is plenty of information that is out there, all I need to do is to sit down and possibly read that information.

Ultimately, as I argued then, Mr. Chairperson, you cannot dispute that, yes, there is a pile of information out there. If I had the time and resources, I guess, I can go from one coast to the next coast, down to the States, and so forth, compile all the research work that has been done out there; again, have our extensive research department pore through the information and somewhere, possibly, find something that the government could say, here is a reason why

we need to move in this direction. That is not practical, nor is it realistic for us as an opposition party, with a very limited resource or research abilities to be able to do that. That is the reason why I specifically asked of the Minister of Health to provide very specific information that supports the need to privatize for profit home care service delivery.

The minister has tabled a couple of documents. I am not too sure where within those documents it is recommending the privatization, so as of yet to the best of my knowledge and the minister will have between now and ultimately having to vote on this if it comes to a vote motion to bring forward information that ultimately we believe is absolutely essential for government to be able to base a decision on. We are not convinced that the government has the information and for that reason, without the Minister of Health providing specific information where it concludes, if you like, that what Manitoba needs is to privatize for profit, we have to assume that the minister does not have those recommendations or does not have anything to support that.

I would request the minister, as I say, that if he does have that specific information, that he would release it to, not only opposition but through the opposition, to the public as a whole. Given the dramatic changes that are being proposed, I think that a very good, thorough discussion and debate, because as a political party we have not supported the government’s move towards the privatization. We will continue to oppose it and the minister cannot even reasonably expect anything otherwise from not only a political party, but from the average person amongst the public, because he is not prepared to put forward the information in which he supposedly used to come up with this particular recommendation. That is really all I have to say about the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) got into this discussion because I heard what he was talking about and we have produced numerous, numerous reports and studies and we have been very open in that regard. I do not work in the Province of Nova Scotia, but the honourable member might be interested to know what it is that a Liberal administration in the Province of Nova Scotia would be using to justify its position on these matters.

* (1450)

I would like to read to the honourable member a news item which appeared in the Halifax Mail Star onTuesday, April 2. As the honourable member may know, the government of Nova Scotia is moving to privatize its home care program, unlike us here in the province of Manitoba where we are not doing that. It says Home Health Care To Be Privatized, this is the Halifax Mail Star.

It says this: Health Minister Ron Stewart is about to privatize home care. By year’s end, those who make meals, change bandages and administer morphine in homes across the province will have to bid for the job. We are designing a whole new system, the minister said Monday. The main issue in order to get this up and running was to maintain the tried-and-proven service deliverers in the interim period. Since the home care in Nova Scotia program began last June, most of the 13,000 people receiving health care at home have been served by established nonprofit agencies like the Victorian Order of Nurses and Northwood Home Care. That is changing. Within days the province will award the first private sector contract for personal care workers. A handful of companies and nonprofit agencies are competing. In-home nursing will follow in a matter of months. Three months would be optimistic, Mr. Stewart said, by the end of the year, certainly. The VON is feeling the pressure. The Halifax branch has already asked workers to give up 3 percent of their pay and their cars to cut costs and help hold onto the contract to care for 700 metro clients. Its nurses went on strike, and Mr. Stewart’s foes from opposition MLAs to the head of the Nova Scotia nurses’ union say he is putting dollars ahead of people’s health. We do not need bargain-basement health care, said nurses’ union president Jean Candy. Catherine Randall who served on Mr. Stewart’s blueprint committee on health reform and recommended more care in the home rather than the hospital, is also worried.

This all sounds familiar, does it not? All sounds familiar. No way did anybody sitting around that table mean that that service was to be delivered by unqualified, nonregulated personnel, she said. We are beginning the slippery slope to unqualified, nonregulated privatization for profit in the delivery of health care in this province. All this sounds so very familiar, does it not, Mr. Chairman?

The quarrel is not with private companies per se but with how those who provide home nursing and other services are regulated. Mr. Stewart favours a three-part system which relies on including a set of standards within each contract on nurses and nursing assistants living up to their own professional standards and on government checking up on those delivering care.

All this sounds so very familiar, does it not, Mr. Chairman? By the way, it is not Mr. Stewart, it is Dr. Stewart, but the paper has put him down as Mr. Stewart. It would include features such as onsite inspections, phone interviews with clients written surveys of clients, a toll-free complaint line. It all sounds so familiar, does it not? There will also be swift action if standards slip. For me, if you violate the standards of the contract, the contract is null and void, the health minister said. And that too, sounds so very familiar. All these things seem to have been said right here in Manitoba.

Margie Donovan, head of the Halifax VON’s striking union local said cheaper care might be poorer care. The lowest bidder is not going to be able to maintain qualified, highly skilled people she said. You could have personal care workers going in and making choices or administering medications which they know nothing about to the clients because they are told to do it. Mr. Stewart said, that will not happen. The system of inspections and double-checks being developed will make it difficult for operators to cut corners. If they do not measure up, he said, contracts will be terminated.

That also sounds awfully familiar to me, Mr. Chairman. And here is something else that sounds very familiar. That is just not good enough, said NDP leader Robert Chisholm. When profit margins compete with service, health care will suffer.

Tory Health critic George Moody said tough requirements should be entrenched in law.

Well, we have an opposition that does not seem to be quite so opposed as the New Democrats in Nova Scotia; the Tories in Nova Scotia are interested in having tough requirements. Dr. Stewart has given us assurances before, he said. We need legislation and regulations to protect the clients. Putting the rules for home care into law would allow government to impose fines or even seek jail terms for shoddy care.

Well, if that could be said now, I suppose it could be said at any time, but it is interesting how it seems only the players have different titles in different places, but the circumstances are basically parallel.

We do, indeed, have the best system in the country right here in Manitoba, and I do not think anybody is arguing with that. But to say that--Mr. Chairman, do not fall into the trap. I know you are not going to do this, but I want to warn you anyway: Do not fall into the trap of the New Democrats by saying, we have the best system, so, therefore, do not do anything.

I have it in Hansard the other day, in the Question Period, the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) said, go back to the system we had in the first place. By that, he means, and we know this from his performance, just do not do anything. Do not change anything. Ignore the fact that there is no money coming from Ottawa--or not enough money coming in from Ottawa. Ignore the fact that Manitobans want us to live within our means. Ignore the fact that there are areas where improvements should be made in our Home Care program.

When you are in opposition, you can do all that. When you are in opposition, you do not have to make changes. When the NDP were in government, they knew that there were some things that needed addressing, and I do not know how many millions they spent and whether the Price Waterhouse people were Americans or who they were--they probably were--but the NDP commissioned a report back then and that report pointed out some of the weaknesses in the Home Care program. Nobody’s fault, Mr. Chairman, they exist.

The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) made it clear earlier on that this is a program that this is growing, and growing fast, and is having--he did not call it growing pains; he called it something else--but it is the same idea, those growing pains. I mean, there are adjustments that need to be made, and that is precisely what is happening, not only in Manitoba, but elsewhere.

But let us not get lost in our own rhetoric here by saying that it is the best there is, so, therefore, do not change it, do not fix anything that is wrong with it.

The way that you remain the best is by maintaining some quality, but looking after your standards, by making sure that you achieve the standards, by enforcing standards, by making sure that the clients continue to get the best care that they can get anywhere in the country. That is what that is all about.

An Honourable Member: Why do you not get some standards?

Mr. McCrae: There are very good standards. You cannot claim that you have--.

An Honourable Member: Not according to your advisory committee. Not according to Connie Curran.

Mr. McCrae: You cannot claim that you have the best system in North America and say there are no standards. You see, you cannot always have it like that. I acknowledge that we have the best system in the country, and the reason that we have that is that we do have standards--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 3 p.m., committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being 3 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.