Home Care Program
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Madam Speaker, for the last 10 days we have unfortunately had a dispute between the government and the home care workers here in Manitoba. Throughout that period, in fact before that period, Manitobans were telling us and telling MLAs on this side and I am sure MLAs on that side that they were opposed to the ideological plans of the government to privatize.
They were opposed to the profit introduction in our home care area that the government had proposed with their Treasury Board document that became public, and that the clients and the workers and the people of Manitoba wanted to have an input into the decisions the government was making. These were very important decisions affecting the lives of many Manitobans, and they wanted a say in those decisions that the government was making. In fact, the seniors this week, we tabled a letter for the minister a couple of days ago wherein they called this a radical change to home care in the province of Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government today whether they would take the high road on this dispute, listen to the clients, listen to the public, listen to the workers, call a moratorium on their privatization plans and call the public hearings that so many clients and workers are calling for here in the province of Manitoba.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in a sea of irrationality, we witnessed yesterday an island of reason. I believe there is reason for us all to be quite hopeful. The expression by members of the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union yesterday of an acknowledgment of the reality within which we all work was refreshing. I believe that that expression made yesterday by the members of the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union will continue to be reflected by the good people who work for the government of Manitoba in this province and that we will have home care services restored very soon.
Pending that decision, we would, of course, urge the honourable members opposite to urge their friends in the upper levels of the union movement to sit with members of the government to negotiate the restoration of services for people in Manitoba who need them on an essential basis.
* (1350)
Privatization--Cost Benefits
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister would call the Manitoba seniors organization an irrational organization. I think the Manitoba seniors organization, the disabled organizations, the many speakers who came before this Legislature who are clients are very rational. I think the Minister of Health owes a great apology to those organizations and those people who use those services. I am quite disappointed in his language here today.
Madam Speaker, in the Treasury Board document that the government issued a while ago and was made public a while ago, and in all the documents that we have looked at, Evelyn Shapiro’s information on cost-effectiveness, the grids that are contained within the government documents, the cost studies that the government has provided, we can see no numbers to justify the government’s ideological decision to proceed.
In fact, this Treasury Board document may be the only Treasury Board document that I have ever seen that does not have numbers in it in terms of the decisions that the government would make. It only has ideology, an extreme ideology in that regard in terms of, the health policy now is divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations.
Can the minister now today in the House table any long-term study on costs and quality that he has, because we have not seen it yet, and why is the government being driven by extreme ideology as contained in the Treasury Board document, rather than costs, numbers and quality of service that Manitobans desire?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if there is any ideology it rests with the leadership of the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union who made it very clear at the very beginning of their strike that this is an ideological matter for them. This, in their view, has nothing to do with the care of the clients of the home care system; they are busy fighting their battle on the basis of an ideological bent towards monopoly which is not something that is felt is the best way to provide service to those who need it in our province.
The position of the New Democratic Party, as put forward by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and I quote, is: Go back to the system we had in the first place.
The Manitoba Society of Seniors, those organizations representing disabled Manitobans and other Manitobans with whom I have consulted extensively over the past couple of years, Madam Speaker, it is the consensus amongst all of them that we have an excellent Home Care program but that there are things that need to be improved in that Home Care program.
But the honourable member for Kildonan says, just go back to the way things were. Madam Speaker, the way things were creates some problems for the sustainability of the Home Care program, those problems being an inability to be responsive. How many times has Vera Chernecki, president of the Manitoba Nurses Union, for example, told us that we cannot properly discharge people from our hospitals because the Home Care program is not responsive enough?
Those are the kinds of things we want and need to address, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the letter we tabled with the Minister of Health on Monday asked the government to put its privatization plans on hold and have public hearings and have a moratorium, and it is in writing.
I would like to ask the minister, in light of the fact that his own assistant deputy minister on March 23, 1996, said, and I quote: I would not hang your hat too much on the $10 million because it is based on a whole lot of uncertainties right at the moment--in light of the fact that the minister has said there are no savings in the ideological decision of the government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has said there is $10-million savings, the ADM is saying, I would not hang my hat on the savings, and the government has placed $10 million in their budget, can the minister today table the Treasury Board documents that have never been released--if they have them--that justifies the decision to divest themselves of all service delivery in nongovernment organizations including home care? Can he give us the numbers and facts and figures that back up their proposal, rather than the ideology that seems to be driving a very stubborn government that should have the moratorium and put an end to this dispute and let the public speak out on their home care system, Madam Speaker?
Mr. McCrae: I would encourage the honourable Leader of the Opposition to show enough interest in the clients of the Home Care program to participate in the discussions at the Estimates review level in this Chamber perhaps later this afternoon or at any other occasion that honourable members want to schedule a discussion on the Estimates of the Department of Health, and he will see that the commitment of this government to the Home Care program is extremely significant when compared with that of the government when he and his friend Mr. Pawley were in charge.
We have increased funding, Madam Speaker, to the Home Care program by some 111 percent and in addition to that, this year we are adding another $8 million to the budget for home care. No such commitment was ever shown by honourable members opposite and indeed the honourable member--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable members ask me questions. Then they want to put an end to my answers. I mean, why do they ask questions if they do not want to hear the answers?
* (1355)
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear: “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.” I would submit to you that the minister has been asked three very specific questions. On three occasions he has refused to answer those questions. I would like to ask you to call him to order and ask him to answer the question or sit down so we can try and get some real discussion and debate on this issue.
Madam Speaker: I would remind all honourable members that common courtesy is required in this Chamber so that those members wishing to hear the questions and those wishing to pose questions can be heard and, conversely, so that those members responding to questions can be heard.
On the point of order, I am going to say there was not a point of order. Regrettably, I was not able to hear all of the remarks of the minister because of the disruption in the Chamber.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Moratorium
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
We have received no documentation, no support, no advice as to why the government is privatizing. Today we find that even an owner of a private home care agency has said, and I quote: The government workers have demonstrated a really strong track record over the years in providing a wonderful service. I would be very sorry to see that home care service as it is currently offered now be dissolved.
Madam Speaker, even the few people who support, I presume, the government’s privatization appear to indicate they are not in favour. Can the minister do the right thing, put a moratorium on this, allow the people of Manitoba to discuss it, allow it to come under scrutiny to see the actual documentation? Will they put it under a moratorium today and end the strike?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I believe the honourable member is referring to a news report quoting the owner of a home health care service company. The trouble with the honourable members opposite sometimes is they forget to tell you the rest of the story. If the honourable member would like to table that and maybe share with the rest of us, the story goes on to point out that this particular person the honourable member is quoting also goes on to say, it does not matter whether you are employed by the private sector or the public sector. This person has no doubt that the quality of care would not in any way be affected by any changes like this.
So the honourable member should maybe be a little more forthcoming and forthright with us when he is referring to the comments of people who take his side of the argument. You cannot be quite so selective. Put the whole story on the record.
* (1400)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister now, given that he does not understand the article that I read and he perhaps could read it again, will the minister--if the policy is so strong, if he is so convinced his position is right--put a moratorium on his plan, allow the public to discuss it, allow for input from the public, allow us to review the minister’s documents, put it on hold, end the strike, stop the line-up and the fill-up of the hospitals and do the right thing? Will he today announce a moratorium?
Mr. McCrae: Well, for about the first time, at least I can congratulate the honourable member for being consistent, because what he is asking here is consistent with his policy of go back to the system we had in the first place. The only trouble with his policy is that it is not consistent with his own report, the Price Waterhouse report commissioned by the NDP, which points out many, many areas where improvement is required in our Home Care program, which, by the way, suggests as the solution to all the problems, the NDP should bring in user fees and the NDP should bring in cuts in service. We reject that.
We recognize, however, that there are problems we need to address, and it is nice to know that there is support in the public service of this province for the people of this province and a recognition that there is a reality that exists. I just wish honourable members in the New Democratic Party would join the rest of us in the ’90s and understand that there are realities within which we have to work.
Privatization--Report Tabling Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My supplementary again is to the Minister of Health.
Madam Speaker, I will table the minister’s own Treasury Board document, dated December 16, 1995. I would like to ask the minister, will the minister finally explain to this House why it is government policy, divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations? Will he provide the tables, the studies, the experts, anybody from the Department of Health or anybody in Manitoba who can justify this ridiculous policy that has forced us into a strike situation, forced workers off and forced clients to suffer at the hands of this government?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I understand why honourable members today are feeling so despondent. The despondency that we see opposite in this House today is a reflection of their acknowledgment that they have over the--I do not know for how long, but certainly today they misread what is going on in our province. Honourable members opposite may begin to join the human race in the ’90s very soon. We hope that will happen and then the questions that come forward in this House will be far more constructive and far more relevant to the realities of the ’90s.
Victims Assistance Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday the minister said, as I think she says every time she has an audience, that this government has made a very strong commitment to victims of crime, just like in the election when the government said victims would get top priority.
My question for the minister is: Given this talk and given more victims than ever under this government, am I reading this year’s Estimates at page 99 right where it says under Victims Assistance, a cut of 6 percent, the largest single service cut in her department?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I will say again for the members across the way, yes, this government does have a commitment to victims. We do have a commitment to victims services. We are at the moment undertaking a provincial study to deal with strategies to deal with victims all across this province. We also continue to fund programs to assist victims. We have extended the RCMP program for victims services for another year while we are developing our strategy.
Yes, there is some change in the Victims Assistance line. It does come from a decision in the area of the Criminal Injuries Compensation area.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain her cut of $116,700 to victims assistance in light of this very unique and specific election pledge made during the campaign, which the minister co-chaired, and I quote: The Premier (Mr. Filmon) said victims assistance funding will be increased by two--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns was recognized for a supplementary question, and I believe he asked the supplementary question and is now reading from text.
The honourable member for St. Johns, quickly rephrase your question.
Mr. Mackintosh: How can the minister explain this specific promise? The Premier said victims assistance funding will be increased by $250,000 in the 1996-97 fiscal year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, what that refers to is our support for the RCMP program for victims assistance.
I find it amazing to see the member laughing. The commitment made to victims by the government across the way simply did not exist. This government has made that commitment. We have entered into partnerships with organizations such as the RCMP and community groups to provide services to victims.
We provide additional services to victims in the form of our Women’s Advocacy Program. We have expanded the Women’s Advocacy Program. Members across the way did nothing like that when they had the opportunity--nothing.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain, while the money goes to the Victims Assistance committee, not RCMP--that during her tenure in office, victims assistance grants have been slashed by 42 percent in just four fiscal years. Is that a top priority, Madam Speaker?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, absolutely not, and when the member and I have the opportunity to in fact get into a detailed discussion in the Estimates of the Department of Justice, I think he will find that some of those changes come from payouts in the area of Criminal Injuries Compensation when the payouts have been completed. So in fact he is wrong again, as he always is.
Madam Speaker, this government continues their commitment in the area of support to victims. We have enhanced that commitment in support to victims; we continue it. When we are able to bring forward in the next while our provincial strategy on victims, I believe it will provide very significant and additional support to victims across this province. They are in fact a priority. We continue to bring in legislation as well which puts the victim back into the system.
Home Care Program
Minister of Health’s Comments
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, when it comes to many issues, including the home care issue, there is a growing crisis of democracy in this province. We have a government that is afraid to face home care clients and many other Manitobans at a protest on Monday, that ducks out of, in the minister’s case, going to the Deer Lodge opening, which is afraid to face the people of Manitoba.
Instead of trying to bring Manitobans together to solve this dispute, I would like to ask why the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is making such statements as he did on April 17, 1996, saying that the NDP stood for taking people’s groceries out of their shopping baskets and throwing them on the ground and hissing and shouting and spitting and slashing tires and breaking windows and bombs. How does the minister think such a ridiculous statement helps settle the home care situation in this province?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Again, Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Thompson is very sensitive and somewhat despondent today. His very, very close links with the leadership of unions which have in the past engaged and been involved in activities which are clearly against the public interest, unkind and profoundly rude in some cases--and it is that sort of stuff that goes on when you get into certain disputes--honourable members opposite consistently find themselves on the side of the leadership of the unions and not on the side of the ordinary people of this province. The purpose of my comments is to attempt to expose these honourable members for what they really are.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the same minister.
When will the minister realize that we are not going to resolve the home care dispute until the minister stops making inflammatory comments against anyone who disagrees with him, whether it be the New Democratic Party, whether it be home care clients, home care workers, the Manitoba Society of Seniors? When is he going to bring this province together to solve the problem with home care instead of making inflammatory comments on a daily basis in this House?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, rather than engaging in personal attacks, I suggest that we might resolve disputes better at the negotiating table, and it might be useful if the leadership of the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union would search inside their hearts and perhaps find it within their hearts to agree to provide services to people who need them on an essential basis. That to me would go a long way to resolving the problems that some of the clients of our home care system have. But honourable members opposite consistently support strike action. I do not support strike action. I support providing services to people who need them.
* (1410)
Minister of Health
Replacement
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, if the minister will not withdraw those comments, and the kinds of comments he has been making about many other Manitobans, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if he will ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to ask for the replacement of the Minister of Health so we can get somebody in that portfolio who can work with Manitobans instead of--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, let me respond by saying that I, first of all, take this opportunity to acknowledge the workers for the people of Manitoba in working on behalf of the government to carry out their responsibilities in a very responsible manner. It is that kind of commitment that should be acknowledged and thanked, and we do so.
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate today that the member who has asked the question, the New Democratic Party, has again attacked the workings of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), a man who has stood to make sure the services have been provided for those people who are in need of the home care services. He is, in fact, making sure that is provided, while members opposite, for their own political purposes, have aggravated and agitated to get a strike against the people of Manitoba in the services that have been provided. It is for their political purposes, and they and the union leader should consider what their future path will be.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and now the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), are alleging that members on this side would break the law in agitating for a certain vote in a democratic institution under The Labour Relations Act.
I know members opposite do not understand that these decisions are made in a democratic way under The Labour Relations Act, but we on this side follow the law, believe in democracy and it is about time the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Health also respect The Labour Relations Act and other institutions in a free and democratic society. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Landfill Sites--Winnipeg
Requirements
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.
The Minister of Environment seems to be quite content in terms of standing by to allow BFI to put together another garbage dump in the north end of the city of Winnipeg. Call it what you will, it is a garbage dump, and the--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Inkster, to quickly pose his question.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, just over a year ago a report on the public hearings from the CEC recommended, and I quote: That the Manitoba government should provide leadership in the development of an integrated system for solid waste management in and around the capital region.
Can the Minister of Environment give this Chamber any evidence whatsoever that will illustrate that the city of Winnipeg needs to have three garbage dumps?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster should know that we have spent considerable time over the last couple of years working in the capital regions organization to make sure that the city of Winnipeg and its surrounding authorities are at least attempting to work together on some long-range planning for the area, but there was certainly no broad understanding or agreement on that, and this proposal put forward by BFI has been undertaken to be reviewed for its environmental merits or lack of.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the north end needs a hospital instead of a garbage dump.
My question to the Minister of Environment: Can he tell this House that in fact there is a need in the capital region for the city of Winnipeg for yet another garbage dump?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, there were two sets of hearings on this proposal, giving the member considerable opportunity to raise issues if he so chose. But, in reviewing the proposal, the Clean Environment Commission indicated that there were a number of jurisdictions--or was told there were a number of jurisdictions that needed service.
Frankly, one of the problems that we have had is that when jurisdictions within the capital region, other than the City of Winnipeg, were looking for services and offering to pay for those services, they were flat-out told to forget it. So they went ahead and began establishing alternative services for themselves. As a result, we now see this application being brought forward by BFI.
Mr. Lamoureux: Given that, is it not in the City of Winnipeg’s and in essence the province’s best interest then that the Minister of Environment follow the recommendation put forward by CEC, meet with the City of Winnipeg and BFI, and see if in fact they can come up with a compromise as opposed to seeing a third garbage dump put in the city of Winnipeg?
Mr. Cummings: I am glad to see that the member for Inkster is now onside. I agree that we need to have the City of Winnipeg and BFI sit down and clearly address the issues between them, but frankly you have to have two willing parties and one of them is not willing.
* (1420)
Education System
Home Economics Curriculum
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Education. The gap between what a Tory government says it will do and what it really plans to do is enormous, and most Manitobans now recognize it.
Education plans talked of renewal, of enhancement, but the reality is continuous cuts to the public education system and loss of program opportunities for our children.
Can the Minister of Education confirm that as a result of both her funding cuts and her timetabling disruptions, home economics will be no longer offered in Grades 7 and 8, St. Boniface School Division, Rhineland School Division, Seine River School Division, Pelly Trail School Division, that in Pine Creek School Division it will be cut from Grade 7 to Senior 4, and that in six other divisions, primarily in rural Manitoba, it is under review for elimination next year?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I do not have with me what school divisions have chosen as part of their own timetabling. I will get that information and bring it back to the member or confirm it for her in Estimates or some other area where we are together.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister tell the House what her answer has been to the letters she has received on this from, for example, the Ashern School Advisory Council, who wrote to her that the elimination of home economics would hurt our students in a very profound way, or to Gladstone Parent Councils who, like many Manitobans, recognize that our children need the hands-on approach to learning, and underlined for the minister that many of these classes also provide life skills to these children? How can she claim that she does not know this?
Mrs. McIntosh: I thought, in the first question, the member had asked me to confirm what decisions school divisions have made concerning the courses they choose to offer to their students. That confirmation I need to obtain from school divisions.
I know that school divisions in setting their school plans are able now to better reflect the wishes of their constituents, the parents in the community who may say they value, for example, music over another elective. As in many areas, the greater flexibility that has been requested so that schools and communities have the opportunity to have the programs in the school reflect community wishes, decisions have to be made by boards as to how far they wish to go to accommodate the community.
I do not have those final decisions made by those boards here with me today. I will obtain them and provide them to her.
Independent Schools
Funding Formula
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Could the minister inform the House of any private schools in Manitoba which have eliminated significant programs this year as a result of her 15 percent increase in funding to those schools?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Again, I do not have decisions that have been made by schools, school boards or individual schools as to those programs they have selected according to their electives.
I do know that most independent schools have shared services agreements with school divisions to provide things such as band, music arts, et cetera, and that many share bus routes, things like that, where independent schools and school divisions work in co-operative relationships with each other to maximize cost-effectiveness for both. Those shared services agreements, obviously, if an independent school is purchasing a shared services agreement on home economics, for example, with a school division, that would be dependent upon whether the school division is offering that particular course.
Madam Speaker, we do know that we have courses that are compulsory, primarily talking specifically about literacy, language arts and mathematics in our schools. Those pertain to all schools, independent and public.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Moratorium
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when a minister establishes an advisory committee, as the minister did on continuing care, you would think that the minister would listen to the recommendations of that committee.
Instead, the minister is pushing ahead with privatization of home care, when his own committee says, rural regionalization transferred to the Winnipeg home care agency and the resulting massive contracting out had the potential to erode the quality of provincial health care.
Will the minister listen to his own committee? Will he listen to the home care workers? Will he listen to the clients and put in place a moratorium so that home care can continue and we can have public hearings on how people want this service delivered, not on the path of the minister’s privatization?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we are listening to the
Advisory Committee on Continuing Care. We are listening to Price Waterhouse. We are listening to all the others who have reminded us of some of the problems that exist and reminded us of the danger of exactly what the honourable member referred to. That is why an incremental approach is the approach being taken.
We are talking about 25 percent--putting 25 percent of home care services in Winnipeg--being the subject of competition, no changes in rural Manitoba. Honourable members opposite lead people to believe that what we are talking about is user fees and cuts in services.
No, that is the NDP approach as set out in their report, the Price Waterhouse report which they commissioned, which calls for user fees and calls for cuts in service. We are not doing it that way. Even though that is their way, it is not ours.
Responsibility--Rural Manitoba
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I would like to ask the minister if he is now backing off on his-- [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: Is the minister telling us that he is now backing off on his own Treasury Board document that says, regional health authorities will take over all service deliveries in rural areas? Is this what he is saying, because that was not included in the document that he tabled?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): It is an established policy, Madam Speaker, that these services will be the responsibility of the regional health authorities in the future. That is not new. That has been recommended by the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council, has been stated as government policy for a long time. The only thing that these regional health authorities will have to do is meet or exceed provincial standards.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Standards
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, where are the standards that these people will have to meet if you have not tabled any standards? Where are the standards and where is the agency, the public agency that is going to deliver if you are privatizing? The regional health boards will have to privatize the home care service.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I have to admit, Madam Speaker, I sometimes have trouble understanding honourable members opposite. Are they seriously telling me that what they think is the best home care system in North America has no standards? Is that what the honourable member is trying to tell me?
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, with one very short question.
Child and Family Services
Children’s Advocate Recommendations
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, last year in the Children’s Advocate’s first annual report there were dozens of recommendations. In his second annual report which is now over a year old, the Children’s Advocate observes that very little change appears to have occurred in spite of all the rhetoric from the Minister of Family Services, and that Manitoba’s Child and Family Services system needs to be rebuilt to meet the needs of children and families and he hopes that any efforts to redesign these services does not include offloading onto families, including foster families, or at the expense of children in care which appears to be the route outlined by recent policy initiatives in the department.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services, what is she doing to rebuild the Child and Family Services system, given the sheer numbers of complaints to the Children’s Advocate and the systemic problems identified by the Children’s Advocate?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. It does allow me to indicate that I think the protection of children and the care for children does cross party lines, and I believe all members of the House and all Manitobans want to ensure that children first and foremost are protected and cared for.
I want to indicate again to my honourable friend that it was this government that put in place the Children’s Advocate, and it his role to provide constructive criticism on things that are not working in the system. The first step that we have taken this year is to restructure the Department of Family Services in the last couple of weeks that does place all the services for children under one assistant deputy minister. We will be placing more of a focus on compliance and community development, and there will be things that I will be able to discuss in great detail through the Estimates process with my honourable friend.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.