2nd-36th, Volume 23 - Committee of Supply

HEALTH

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order please? This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Health. We are on item 1.(b)(l), and the item before the committee is the motion of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Chairperson, I stand today with some serious concern, because I think that although I am extremely pleased with what we have seen with the vote yesterday-- and it is extremely heartwarming to see that the rank and file of the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union saw in their wisdom to co-operate with this government and to take the responsible position that they want to work--I am extremely troubled by what I have seen in this Chamber and what I see here now.

When we look around this is a motion that was introduced by the honourable member the Health critic for the NDP, and we have very little opportunity to hear their support and their debate on this issue. Tthey know how important this issue is as far as this government is concerned, and I am encouraged by the support that this Health minister has received from this side of the House. I think that the support is well earned because this Health minister has demonstrated to this House, and to all Manitobans, that the people who are most affected and the most vulnerable in society today have our attention and have our concern. I believe that demonstration is obvious and apparent in the home care situation that we are facing and the challenges that we are facing here today.

* (1450)

This government, in dealing with some 17,000 Manitobans who receive home care services today, have put these people first because over the long term of home care, I think, it is incumbent upon any government serving the province, as we are in Manitoba, to ensure that the home care service is sustainable and will be there for the people who will need it in years to come. If we look ahead by looking back over the last 10 years and look forward into the next 10 years, we will be in very serious trouble, because I think that the home care benefits that are available to those people who need it most will be in jeopardy if this government does not take a position and take the opportunity to improve on that today by creating the opportunity for competition rather than relying on government to do all the things that the private industry is capable of doing.

It is interesting to see that what we are experiencing with the members--and I do not blame the home care workers for the position that they are taking, because these are loving and caring individuals. They are the ones who go out and meet the people who need their services the most, and they have made a commitment to these people. I do not even know at this point, after what I have experienced in this Chamber over the last week or 10 days with the official opposition and the position that they have taken--and this is just an example today, Mr. Chairperson. After they have introduced the motion there is nobody here from the official opposition to speak to this. So I question whether or not--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): On a point of order. Mr. Chairperson, if you check the rules you will find that the comments that were made by the member that now has the floor, that it is improper for that member to reference the fact that there are or are not members in the House at this current time. I ask you to ask him to withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I was listening to the member’s comments. He was not referring to the presence or absence of any member. He was asking what their position was in a terminology that you might have misunderstood. So the honourable member did not have a point of order.

Mr. McAlpine: Mr. Chairperson, I can appreciate the concern for the member for Transcona, because there does not appear to be the numbers that represent the official opposition during Question Period.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Now the honourable member is stepping over the line. The honourable member should not be referring to whether or not there are members present within the Chamber. Prior to that, the member would not have been making the same type of statement, so I would ask the honourable member to choose his words carefully.

Mr. McAlpine: I appreciate the counselling that the Chairperson offers today, and I do not mean any disrespect for the honourable members across the way.

* * *

Mr. McAlpine: I only want to make a point to Mr. Chairperson that during Question Period the emphasis on home care seems to be a high level as far as the official opposition is concerned, but when it comes time to really debate this and when the cameras have left and the media have left, it seems that the honourable members are not here to debate the issues that we were talking about and place the same interest and concern that they show when there are people here like the media or the cameras and out of view of the public, and that concerns me. It really is a concern when we look at the aspect of these loving and caring home care workers who have chosen to go out on strike, I question whether or not how many of them actually do, who are on the picket lines and would maybe prefer to be at work and to be giving the service to the people who are the most vulnerable.

I even go so far as to say I do not even know whether we can blame the union leaders, because how do we know whether the members of the official opposition are not even encouraging the union bosses, as we have referred to, to continue to keep these people away from striking?

It is not a question of breaking the law; it is a question of putting ideas in the minds of people who have influence over these vulnerable home care workers; these people who want to serve their clients in a loving and caring way. I have difficulty with that, and I say to the members across the way that they should be encouraging the support to those home care workers to allow them the opportunity to serve the clients instead of taking the position of showing, in this Chamber, in full view of the cameras and in full view of the media--to give a statement that is untrue, and I would encourage the honourable members across the way to support us in what we are doing in trying to allow these people to go to work. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am very pleased to speak again on this motion, because I believe that it is very important to make it clear that we do not support the motion which has been put forward by the member for Kildonan, and in fact we would see the situation completely differently, as do many other Manitobans.

I would like to begin by saying today, though, that some things have changed since yesterday. Since yesterday we have found out now that our public service in Manitoba has made a very clear decision that they are not in favour of striking themselves, and I want to make it clear to the MGEU we are very grateful for their commitment to the people of Manitoba.

I want to make it clear that it is very well recognized, by Manitobans and by government on this side, the efforts and the work that they do and many of us in health areas, in the justice areas, and in all areas. I think that that is quite important, because when we look at any effort of any ministry to provide services, we certainly are dependent on the people who are working within those services.

* (1500)

As I said, that was very important news, and now we are looking at home care workers who have made a different decision. Those home care workers went on strike on Tuesday, April 16, and that has been a great problem and concern for the people of Manitoba, and particularly for those very vulnerable Manitobans. There are approximately 17,000 Manitobans who receive home care services, and about 7,500 Manitobans receive services from home care attendants. That is a lot of people who have now not had a service available to them because of a dispute, which I believe a lot of people simply do not have the facts for.

I would like to begin my remarks by stressing first of all my support for the Minister of Health and in the plan that he has put forward. I also support his approach, both his personal approach and his thoughtful approach to the difficulties. He has a very difficult job, as Ministers of Health across all of this country have at this time. I do not care what province you visit. When any of us have been on business or visiting with our families in other provinces across this country, when you turn on the radio or the TV, one of the first things that you hear are the difficulties in continuing to provide a health care system for people wherever they live.

(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

In Manitoba, I am impressed by the fact that our approach has been a thoughtful one, and it has been an approach which, I believe, has been a balanced one. It has been the result of some very thoughtful planning and has not had to be a knee-jerk reaction that has occurred right away, but in fact has been an approach which we have been looking at for the eight years that we have been in government.

Mr. Chair, I think it is very important to say that the way that our approach is focused and centred is that it is health outcomes first, the client first. That is what is the litmus test for every decision that has been made by this government. We want to make sure that the health outcome is a guaranteed good one, will be of benefit to the person in Manitoba and that the client is the first person in the picture--not a union, not a dispute, not a work disruption. We believe that that is important. That has to be the most important thing. It has to centre our thinking, and it has to centre our thinking because money is an issue in all areas.

So we have to make some very difficult decisions, but some of those decisions have really led to some real benefits for people in Manitoba, and they have been very clear about it, because one of those decisions has been to move people from the very high-cost institutions in our province into their homes to have home care, and the benefit of home care has been that the individual has become more comfortable.

Many people are quite worried when they are in hospital. They are frightened by the technology. When they can be in their own homes, with the things they love and the people that they love, they are often much more relaxed and recover much more quickly. They are also much more emotionally settled. Any one of us who has spent time in the hospital and then has had the opportunity to go home and recover, it makes a big difference to be within your own home.

So I think that as we look at the provision of home care, that is the basis of it. The basis of the provision of home care has been to put the client first, to meet the client’s needs and to make sure that the health outcome at the end, the speedy recovery of the client, is in fact looked after.

I also would like to say, too, that we have an aging population in Manitoba, so we have to look at home care not only for people who have had some surgical intervention or medical intervention at an early part in their lives, but how are we assisting people in our aging population who want to remain in their own homes and, for them, very importantly, to be at home in their own community?

Well, the way this government has done it, Mr. Chair, is very concrete. First of all, we have increased the dollars that we spent. In 1988, there was approximately $38 million spent, with now a dollar amount in the range of $91 million. That is a concrete commitment. Nobody can argue with that. Nobody can suggest that this government has not put their money where their mouth is in relation to client outcomes, in relation to health outcomes and in relation to making sure that people come first. But in dealing with the dollar amount, we have had to look at how some of these services are provided, and at the moment it is provided by a monopoly.

What this government’s plan is, is to take 25 percent of the services in the city of Winnipeg and put them up for tender to allow for some competition. Competition, in this case, is only for 25 percent of the services in the city of Winnipeg. It does not affect rural Manitoba.

I think it is important to make that point, because people in Manitoba have been phoning all of our offices as MLAs and they have been saying, gee, we do not understand what is happening, because they have been getting information that is just plain wrong. They have been getting information that is inaccurate. They have been getting information, maybe the information from the Price Waterhouse report that the NDP commissioned that talked about user fees, that talked about their plan. So we have to do the work of making sure the people of Manitoba know about our plan.

Mr. Chair, I think it is very important to make it clear that in this plan, first of all, there is no cost to the home care client; there is not a user fee. No matter how hard members across the way might want to indicate to Manitobans that that was their plan, therefore maybe they think we should do it too, we have rejected it. This is not a program which is in fact costly. In fact, there will be no change in the services provided. Government will continue to monitor the needs of the clients, and we will make sure that they are being met. That is the first issue, the health outcome and the client centre. We want to make sure that the high standards are also maintained.

But what happened? Did those facts get out? It seems to me, there is a lot of misinformation. What happened was, Home Care workers went on strike; they went on strike April 16. Now, the problem here is that they have now left a whole group of vulnerable Manitobans, those people very vulnerable emotionally who, in fact, need the support of these individuals in their own homes. They have been left. Have they thought about those people? Have they thought about how those people are, the restrictions in their homes, the restrictions to their lifestyles, simply because some matter of competition is going to be introduced into a program that puts the client first and deals with the person’s health outcome? I think not. I think that that has not been considered, and I am extremely concerned about that.

However, I am very pleased to have had a little bit of time today, Mr. Chair, to put on the record again for the people of Manitoba what the plan of this government is, that this government’s plan is to move, for 25 percent of the care in the city of Winnipeg, from a monopoly situation to a situation of competition, that the service will be in fact continued, that it will not have a cost to the people of Manitoba, that this government has not followed what the NDP’s plan was, to introduce user fees.

I would like to just say in closing, I offer my full support to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), to the government of Manitoba, because these are plans which I believe are in the interests of the health of the people of Manitoba. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The honourable member for Pembina. [interjection] Excuse me. The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I am just asking to be recognized to speak.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): I am sorry, I had recognized the member for Pembina.

Mr. Ashton: There is usually a rotation.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Excuse me, I had recognized the member for Pembina, and I think the record would show that.

Mr. Ashton: If you do not want--you say, why we are not speaking, and then I ask for leave to speak and you will not--[interjection]

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): I believe the Chair had recognized the honourable member for Pembina. I think we should proceed in that fashion. Thank you.

* (1510)

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to rise in the House and speak on the motion that was put forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not in any way support that motion. I believe that our Minister of Health is doing an excellent job in providing health care for our province. I believe that the motion as put forward by the member for Kildonan is out of order and certainly I want to speak against that motion.

But, before I do that, I want to recognize the fact that the people working in the health care, and especially those whom I know of within the Pembina constituency, are doing an excellent job in looking after the needs of their clients. I want to recognize them for the faithful work that they are doing on a daily basis, and so I just want to make mention of it that I support the work that they are doing. They are doing a good job, and I want to encourage them to keep on doing the work that they are involved in. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I also want to recognize the fact that the work that our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is involved in is a most difficult job. He has some very, very difficult decisions to make within this province, and, as a government, we support the work that he is doing.

I think the concern and a big part of the problem that the members opposite have is the whole area of change. Certainly, we are living in an age and an era of change. If I look in my community, if I look within the province, those businesses, those organizations that today are successful, that are doing well, are the ones that looked at the whole attitude of change in a very positive light. They were prepared to make the changes that needed to be made within their own organizations. Yes, they stepped out. They took risks. They were challenged for the positions that they were taking, and yet had they not done this, had they not gone out and made some of the changes that they did, certainly they would not be where they are today.

So, Mr. Chairman, I look at it in the same light with the whole area of home care within our province. We need to have a home care system that is sustainable, one that is financially responsible. When I take that and look at the number of people that we are involved with in home care within our province, and at this time there are 17,000 Manitobans who receive home care, and the statistics have it that this number will only increase, therefore we need to be responsible as a government. Certainly, our Minister of Health has taken that approach of being responsible and showing that he is working ahead and looking into the future and wanting to have a home care that is sustainable within this province.

So I support our Minister of Health in the approach that he is taking in looking at the area of home care for this province. With that I just want to say that we are looking at this moment, he is looking at, privatizing 25 percent of the urban area. Certainly this is a start, something that is being looked at. The other thing that I would like to mention at this time is that the rural areas are not being affected. So I just wanted to tell the constituents of Pembina that certainly at this point in time the care that they are receiving is something that we are grateful for and that they, along with others, appreciate the services that are being given to them.

The other thing that I would like to mention about the whole area of home care within our province is that we have heard on a continuous basis, almost daily basis, from the Minister of Health that he wants to, and it is our intention in the area of home care, put the clients, the recipients of the home care that they are receiving, first. Certainly, as a government, our prime motivation is to be able to improve the home care that, on a continual basis, our clients are receiving.

As I just mentioned, the whole area of change. With the possibility or the prospect of change as we look at on a continuous basis, with it brings the opportunity to improve what we are doing. While on the one hand we are very pleased with the level of home care that we are receiving, we believe that there are areas that we could improve in. I would just like at this point in time to give another example of areas where I believe improvements could take place in as far as efficiency is concerned.

My mother lives in an elderly housing unit within my constituency and has been watching the usage of home care within the building that she lives on an ongoing basis. She and many others have looked at some areas of efficiency that could be improved on. I believe that as we challenge each other and with the area of privatizing, I believe that we are also challenging those who are working within the system today to look at ways of improving the system, of improving the delivery of the services that they give. I believe that with this challenge we are going to be able to keep a home care that is sustainable.

Certainly, Mr. Acting Chairman, it is my wish and is my hope that we will be able to do that. Certainly, as all of us are aging, someday we will possibly be recipients of home care. So we would like to have a home care that is going to be able to look after our needs. This is the reason, I believe, that we are introducing change, that we are looking at the aspect of change within this province. We are looking at it for the sake of No. 1 being sustainable, something that in the long term is going to be able to meet the needs of our people. We are looking at the area of fiscal responsibility, one that is going to be affordable for us as a province; and, certainly, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, we are on an ongoing basis and we have been since 1988 devoting more and more dollars toward home care. In fact in 1988, $38 million was spent on home care and that has to date moved to $91 million.

When we see that progression taking place, I guess, it is also concern where are we moving within the next 10 years. I certainly believe it is imperative for us as a government to give those in the ensuing years, giving them a home care system that is one that they will be proud of. On the other hand, when I look at the whole area of fiscal responsibility, I also believe that as we as a government and as a province are looking at running within a balanced budget. We want to be able to give our children, the future generation, something that they can maintain and something that they can work with. I believe that it is tremendously important that we give the kind of a home care system to future generations, one that they can be proud of as having been handed to them and one which for them will be affordable.

And so with that, I just wanted to thank you again for the opportunity to be able to speak to the whole issue of home care, speaking against the motion as was put forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and with that supporting our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and thanking him for the good job that he is doing. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Chairman, I will defer to the opposition if the member wishes to put some remarks on the record.

* (1520)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairperson, I want to thank the member for Roblin-Russell for deferring and allowing us to have some opportunity to speak on this motion as well. I want to commend my colleague the member for Kildonan for bringing this motion forward because certainly people of Manitoba have become very frustrated with what is happening under the guidance of this government and what is happening to health care services, tremendous cuts taking place, tremendous changes taking place. I think what is happening is not in the best interest of Manitobans.

There have been many people who have put recommendations forward on home care and told the minister that he is not making the best decision, but the minister chooses to go forward without being able to bring forward any evidence that the changes he is making is going to improve health care. There are no reports; there are no numbers. Any of the studies that we have seen have indicated that in fact this is not going to be a cost-saving measure. There is going to be a deterioration, and, when we look at the reports out of the minister’s own advisory committee, his own advisory committee says that rural regionalization, transfer to a home care agency and the resulting massive contracting out of services will have the potential to erode the quality of provincial-wide programs.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is not a good move. The government is moving along their own ideological path to move toward privatization. They are not going to save money in the system. In fact, if we look at other provinces, there are increased costs in the system. In the city, the result is going to be that although we hear them say that it is only 25 percent that they are contracting out, it is the start, and under that area we are going to see friends of the government make a tremendous amount of money because we know that under the private system, for example under We Care, We Care bills the government somewhere in the range of $10, $10.75 an hour; and workers are only paid somewhere between $6 and $6.50 an hour. They do not have benefits; they do not get travel time. There are no regulations that will control how the home care will be delivered, and it will result in the private companies making a tremendous amount of money.

So the members will say, what is wrong with making money? There is nothing wrong with making money, but you should not be making money in health care. Health care should be delivered in a nonprofit way to ensure that everybody is treated equally, to ensure that we are not moving towards a two-tier system, and we know that under the private, for-profit home care delivery there is not the continuity there. We talked of some workers who work in the private home care delivery, and I believe this was for We Care, where they have to sit by their phone and wait for a call, but, while they are waiting, they are not getting any pay. So certainly there is a reduction in the amount of pay for the people who are going to be delivering and working closer to the people, and profit for a few companies who are friends of this government.

Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to refer to rural Manitoba because we have heard members across the way saying that this is not going to affect rural Manitoba. Home care workers in rural Manitoba have gotten letters saying that they will not be affected when, in fact, that is not true. When you look at the government’s own document, the cabinet document, Strategic Redirection of Home Care, it says that the rural health authorities will take over all service deliveries in rural areas, including home care delivery by April 1997.

So, in fact, there is going to be a change and there is going to be contracting out in rural Manitoba. The Minister of Health says, well, it is going to be the decision of the rural health boards. Well, the rural health boards are going to have to make many drastic decisions, because we know that there is going to be very serious cuts in health care. Millions of dollars will be cut in rural Manitoba; we believe somewhere in the range of $34 million. The rural health boards will have to be making those decisions for the minister, so then the minister can kind of wash his hands and say, I did not make the cuts, the rural health boards did.

The minister will obviously be able to say, oh, I did not make the changes to home care, the rural health boards did. But if there is no government agency to deliver home care then they are going to have to contract out, they are going to privatize and we will see a reduction in the quality of care. I am not sure if you are familiar with rural Manitoba and how home care is delivered there, but I know many people who have home care services and they develop a real bond between the worker that delivers the service and the client.

When you go to a private system, if you follow the model that we have seen under the services that are now being delivered, there is no continuity. The bond that is built up between client and nurse or worker is going to be broken and that is very unfair.

The government often--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Excuse me, for one moment, please. The Chair recognizes the member from Sturgeon Creek on a point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. McAlpine: The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is putting information on the record that is inaccurate. She is saying that the government are not going to be involved in the home care, that everything is going to privatized. I would ask her that she put proper information on the record not to mislead the public or this Chamber, that the government is not going to be involved. So I would ask you to bring her to order on that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The Member from Swan River, on the point of order?

Ms. Wowchuk: No, Sir, I am waiting to continue my comments.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The Chair does not find that there is a point of order on this issue. There is a dispute on the facts, but I thank the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek for his concern on the issue.

* * *

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Would the member from Swan River please proceed.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, and I can understand the member from Sturgeon Creek being so sensitive on this issue when he says that there is not going to be complete privatization of home care. Granted they are talking about 25 percent of home care being privatized right now. They are also saying that there is not going to be any privatization in rural Manitoba and that is misleading the public, because the government’s own document says that all services delivered in rural Manitoba, including home care, by 1997, will come under this. It is in the government’s own document.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Unfortunately, we know that home care workers are being sent letters saying that they are not going to affected. Sure they are not going to be affected for this year, but we know that that is the agenda of this government and this government is not acting in--the member across the way says that I should stick to the truth and I am putting facts on the table that are coming out of the government’s own document that says that there is going to be privatization of home care in rural Manitoba.

The advisory committee has also said that if the government moves in this direction there is going to be a problem. Those members across the way, who represent people in rural Manitoba, should recognize that Dr. Evelyn Shapiro, who is a renowned person when it comes to having facts about home care, says that the delivery of home care in rural Manitoba is very effective right now; that we should not be changing things. She has said that.

It is a very effective system, but this government has gotten an idea in their head. They are on this agenda that they are going to destroy what we have because ideologically they believe this is what they should be doing. It may be in the interest of their friends, but it is certainly not in the best interest of Manitoba people. What they are doing just makes no sense at all,. We have a very good system of home care. Granted, there are ways that it can be improved. Any system can be improved.

The members across the way said that we are afraid of change, that we do not like the word “change.” But we can have positive change, not backward change. We have a good system. It can be improved, but it does not have to be destroyed. What you are doing, what your government is doing, is destroying a very good system in order that a few people can make profit. This is not caring about better service for clients.

* (1530)

But if the minister was sincere about listening, he would listen to the workers, he would listen to the clients. He has the opportunity to take action, to put in place a moratorium, take the opportunity for public hearings and listen to the people and end what is going on right now.

It is in the minister’s hands. He can do it, and I thank the member for Kildonan for bringing this motion forward.

Mr. Derkach: I rise to put my remarks on the record with regard to the motion that was put forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and I would like to express immediately how regretful it is that the member for Kildonan would even engage in this kind of action or attempted action as it relates to the provision of health care services in this province. If you look at us in Manitoba and you compare the way that health care services are provided, including the home care services that are provided to the residences of this province, to other jurisdictions, whether they are to the west or to the east of us, certainly we can be proud of the fact we have not closed hospitals in this province, whereas in both Saskatchewan and Ontario we have seen massive closures both in rural and urban areas within those jurisdictions.

When you look at the kinds of services that are being delivered today in our province, we can be proud of the fact that in Manitoba today health care services range near the top if compared to the other jurisdictions. I live in a community that is next to the Saskatchewan border, and I can tell you that there are many people who live just inside the Saskatchewan border who are coming to Manitoba to receive their health care services because of the decline of those services in that province.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate our Minister of Health for the position that he has taken. I have to tell you, he has been a man of his word. He has talked about the need for change and that change is inevitable. We have a choice. We can either participate in the change to ensure that we take advantage of what changes are occurring in this world, and that we can emerge from this changing world as winners, or we can stand on the sidelines and not participate and then come out as losers and in the end affect negatively the services that are delivered to the residents of this province.

Our approach and our Minister of Health’s approach is to ensure that we are leading in those changes and that when the changes that are occurring so quickly around the globe settle down that indeed we will be recognized as a province that has led in the changes and is prepared to deal with the world as it may exist then.

I want to talk a little bit about the home care workers in my own jurisdiction. Now, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) in her questions today referenced the people who work in the home care system in her area. I would have to tell the member from Swan River that as a rural community, I have talked in my own constituency to people who work in the home care area who have expressed very adamantly to me on many occasions that they have no desire to participate in any strike action as it relates to home care. Their desire is to continue to provide the services that they have been providing over time, that they deal with the people who need their services, that they understand the economic circumstances that this society is going through, and they understand the need for change and they are not opposed to it as long as those services to our people who need those services are not impacted in a negative way.

The Minister of Health or myself or anyone in this House does not want to see services to our people who need those services affected in a negative way. We all have parents; we all have people who are related to us who need those services. I do not know any member in this House who wants to see those services decline. So the Minister of Health is only attempting to ensure that the best possible services are delivered to our patients when they need them, regardless of what time of the day it is or what time of the week it is. We have seen some deficiencies in the way the system has been set up and we have to address those, and that is exactly what the Minister of Health, my colleague, is doing in the changing and in the attempt to modernize and to reconstruct and to reform the home care system.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that even though 25 percent of the services that are provided by home care workers are going to be affected by this move, members of the opposition have ballooned this into some kind of a situation that is going to impact so negatively on people in this province that they will be without service. It is the scare tactics that are affecting the people who need the services most.

My own parent, who understands where we are coming from, has questioned whether or not the stories that are coming from the health care workers, who have received them from, I would say, the union leadership, are in fact true. I had to explain that clearly none of that was true and that indeed the services in rural Manitoba are going to remain as they are today. But, we cannot forever say that we will not look at improving the efficiencies and the effectiveness of that service. If anybody in this House is thinking that that is what will happen, they should give their heads a shake.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend to the workers in my constituency a tremendous thank you for the continued services that they are providing to the residents and to the clients within my jurisdiction, because they have seen the light. They have recognized the truth, and they understand where this government is going rather than following a line which is leading them in the wrong direction. They have recognized that there is a need to improve, to change, to become more effective in the way services are delivered. I extend that same kind of approach to the people who work in my own department.

I have to tell you that I am very proud of the people who work in my department. For the last six months, I have seen people who work in my department work from early in the morning till late at night preparing for the rural forum that we just put on. It is a monumental task to put it on. No one has ever come back to us and said, look, I need time off because I am overworked. No one has come back to us and said, look, I am not prepared to do this because this is beyond the call of duty as a civil servant. I have to tell you that I have extreme pride in the quality of people that we have working within our department and the way that they have approached their tasks, and they understand that to make this province strong, they have to be a part of making it strong rather than being part of the problem. So I take my hat off to every one of the people who work in my department as civil servants who have worked so tirelessly.

I have to tell you, during winter cities, the Winter Cities Conference was put on on a weekend, a time when people have time off. I am just talking in relation to the services that are being provided, not only in health care but as they extend throughout the Civil Service. I have to tell you that these people did not ask for time off during the weekend, but they brought their spouses out who joined them in the work and services that they were providing. So I think we should be proud of the people who provide the home care services, and I think we should be thankful that we have a Minister of Health who has the vision and indeed has the capacity to be able to deliver on a vision that is going to, in the end, provide better services for the people who need them in this province and put this province at a leading edge when it comes to health care.

Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson, I rise today to take this occasion once more to commend our honourable Minister of Health for his forethought, his strength of character, his perspicacity and his--

An Honourable Member: Perspicacity.

* (1540)

Mr. Radcliffe: Perspicacity, that is right. I might even add acuity.[interjection] I would not want to be so deprecating as to have to indicate the meaning of this nomenclature to my honourable colleagues from--[interjection] Yes, indeed.[interjection] Well, there it is.

I note the motion presented to this committee from the honourable member for Kildonan cites that the honourable minister has failed to provide any research or recommendations, yet I believe it was this very honourable member who actually tabled documents today outlining the detailed plans, the forethought, the exactitude, the lengths to which our honourable minister had gone, the comprehensive overview that our Minister of Health had researched in order to present this plan to his colleagues at the Treasury Board. I believe, therefore, with the greatest of respect to my honourable friend from Kildonan, my honourable colleague from Kildonan, if I could call him that, that charge in this resolution is utterly futile and groundless.

It is, I would say in a word, feckless. [interjection] Absolutely. The honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) says, not one jot or tittle of validity. The next allegation--[interjection] There we go, yes, indeed. There has been much discussion in this Chamber about the term “profit.” In fact, I might allude to a little play on words and say, in fact we should not be listening to the words of our honourable colleagues on the other side of the House with regard to their spurious allegations of profit, but rather turn to our honourable Minister of Health and say, a prophet is not without honour--or is not respected in his own land. I think that more truly represents the proper sentiments that should be voiced in this Chamber.

The second charge that the honourable member for Kildonan has raised, if I can call him that, is that our honourable Minister of Health has failed to respond to the concerns of the clients.

Mr. Chairman, I can say from personal observation and involvement that I have had the occasion to attend with our honourable Minister of Health on innumerable evenings, on his own time, where he has gone out as a volunteer, as a concerned and compassionate volunteer, to receive petitions, to receive advice, to receive lamentations from people who are concerned. He has been on the front steps of this building on many, many different occasions, when a lesser person might feel that they were in jeopardy of their own security, but not so of our Minister of Health.

I can say to this honourable committee today that the patience and the forbearance and the tact and the discretion of our Minister of Health has been something which I think every member of this Legislative Assembly ought to be proud, that we have a public servant who is willing to go the extra mile to allay the concerns that have been needlessly and, one would almost speculate, recklessly raised by some members of our society in an element of our society who perhaps do not have the forethought and the long range of vision which our Minister of Health has on this very issue.

Therefore, I would again challenge the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), when he says that our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is to be censured for his failure to respond to concerns of clients because from personal testimony I can counter and say that I have been there. I have helped the Minister of Health to walk some of these miles. I do not bear the whole burden that our Minister of Health does on this issue, but I can tell this honourable Assembly today that I admire and respect our Minister of Health because of his tireless efforts at responding to the concerns of the clients, of the stakeholders, of the members of the public and yes indeed, Mr. Chairman, even those union bosses, those union bosses who have turned out at some of our meetings to whip up the passions of some of the poor, misguided members of the public who have been attending to seek some sort of advice and direction which they have received from our Minister of Health. [interjection]

The honourable member for Inkster is inquiring as to how this honourable member will vote, and I can tell this Assembly today, Mr. Chairman, that I will vote in support of the long range vision, the plan, the overall master plan that our Minister of Health has laid out for home care.

The last allegation that I have perceived and discerned in this resolution prompted by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)--I would suggest with the greatest of respect to our honourable member for Kildonan that he may have had the best of intentions of presenting this motion, but it does not conform to the facts. His last allegation, which he so futilely presents in this resolution is, he alleges that the Minister of Health has failed to lay out a long-term strategy for community health reform. Well, again I would regrettably challenge the rectitude, or I would challenge the assiduity, I would challenge the academia, I would challenge the overview of our member, our respected member, honourable member for Kildonan when he would so recklessly raise these groundless allegations to our honourable Minister of Health.

We can see that the Minister of Health has looked at the changing market, the changing field of needs, the changing interests that have been presented by increased technology, increased demand. Tomorrow is going to be an exciting day in the health care department, in the health care that is being provided by our honourable Minister of Health, so it is with honour, it is with great vigour and enthusiasm that I commend to the members of this Assembly today the forethought, the patience, the skill of our Minister of Health in introducing these changes in the application of home care in our province.

Mr.Chairman, we have seen that since 1988 there has been an increase of 2,000 clients who are receiving home care in our province. Now, we are looking at the fields of home support services, we are looking at personal care services, we are looking at nursing services. Our Minister of Health has discerned that all these services must be integrated with an early release program from all our hospitals. We realize and our Minister of Health has realized that there has to be integration, and I would look to the honourable member for Inkster to say there must be harmonization.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on the opportunity to present these few humble remarks in favour and support of our most honourable Minister of Health in these reforms.

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

Mr. Radcliffe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present these few humble remarks in favour and support of our most honourable Minister of Health in these reforms, and I thank you very much.

* (1550)

Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): I am pleased to rise again in support of our Minister of Health who has had the courage to bring in change, reform, which is needed to health care. Our Minister of Health is the same as many ministers of Health across the country whatever political stripe. Ministers of Health are recognizing that we cannot continue to do things the same way. Regretfully, members opposite want to do things just like they were done 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. We cannot do it that way anymore.

Change, of course, means fear for many people. Some people simply cannot handle any sort of change, and when they become fearful they begin putting out misinformation. One of the things that has happened since we have gone to this different direction is the misinformation that has been put out by various people.

Now, one of the things that I think is most evident in the debate that we have heard here in this Chamber and certainly in some of the newspaper articles and some of the people that I have spoken to, that the one thing that has been forgotten in this debate is the patient. If the patient were really first and foremost, why is there not any essential services agreement in place? I think it is absolutely terrible that MGEU has turned its back on home care clients. Even the union admits that the clients are in jeopardy.

Why is there no essential services agreement in place? We are asking, at the very least, that the union provides essential services to 20 percent of all home care recipients in Manitoba. These are the vulnerable people in our society and, regretfully, the union has turned its back on them. The union has said that it will provide essential services only to those patients who are terminally ill, only to those with six months or less to live.

An Honourable Member: Shame on them for that.

Mrs. Render: Some members have said, shame. Members opposite have said quite often that we have made cuts to home care. How can they say that when our budget has gone from $38 million to $91 million? That, Mr. Chairman, is not a cut. They have problems with their math and that is why they are on the other side of the House, because problems with math put this province into debt. We are trying to make sure that we live within government means, which means again that we have to do things differently. We have tried to work with our union to do things differently. We have not been totally successful in that way. We have got the more flexible services by contracting out.

Members opposite have said quite often, why have you not talked to us about this, give us some evidence that this works? Members opposite seem to have a very short memory. What about the Seven Oaks project of a year ago? Seven Oaks project, if my memory is correct, they contracted that out to I think it was the We Care and, again if my memory is correct, that was a project that worked exceedingly well. The patients who were discharged, who had this service, felt that it was excellent.

NDPs seem to have a problem with any service that is provided by a private company. [interjection] Well, the member opposite says, I am flying by the seat of my pants. [interjection] Yes, better take your foot out of your mouth on that one. I was very pleased to stand up a couple of days ago and make reference to the fact that many a year ago I was with the Victorian Order of Nurses, which is a private organization, and that was the organization which here in Manitoba set up the first home health program. It was a very flexible and adaptable program, but, as I said that day, regretfully, sometimes once we move things into government things become a little less flexible and sometimes we become a little overburdened with how government reacts.

We need to home-care patients. Hospitals like to be able to discharge on other than a Monday-to-Friday basis. To be able to accommodate a weekend discharge, we have had to go to a private service so that we can accommodate our home care patients. To accommodate 24-hour service, again we have had to go to the private sector to get this. A private sector is adding the flexibility that we need for this very vitally needed service.

We already know about keeping patients in the hospital in an expensive hospital bed at $800, $900 a day, whatever that figure happens to be. Many of these patients do not need to be in an acute care hospital. We need to be moving them to a more appropriate place, whether it is a community care, whether it is a personal care home or whether it is back to their own home. In many instances, it is back to their own home that they wish to go, and we have to be able to provide service to the patient. That, Mr. Chairman, seems to be what so many people have forgotten. Government is here to provide a service; government is not here to provide jobs. We hire people to provide the service, and the No.1 thing is to make sure that we are providing a service. We have more flexibility.

Now the member opposite keeps chattering away here, and I would hope that, perhaps, maybe one of the members opposite might stand up and answer this question. We have offered to work with the union to have them put in a bid. Now the home care attendants, the union is in an excellent position to put in a bid. These are the people that are delivering the service right now. I do not understand why they would not put together a bid. In fact, do the home care attendants even know that, perhaps, their union has rejected that? I am wondering whether they have even been advised that they have an opportunity to put a bid on this service.

I must remember when I go out of this building to ask any home care attendant that I meet if they have been told that they can put together a bid, or is the union just doing things for themselves to make a point?

Now one of the things that has really disturbed me in this whole process, as I say, is the misinformation that has been put on record. There have been many, many people who have said that the whole service is going to be privatized. Mr. Chairman, that is incorrect. No more than 25 percent of the services in Winnipeg will be up for tender.

Regretfully, too, some people are saying that there is going to be a charge to home care. Untrue again, Mr. Chairman. No cost to home care clients. No changes in the services provided. Government will continue to monitor the needs of clients and ensure that those needs are met, and standards will be maintained and continue to be enforced. Also, there is no change in the service delivery in either the rural or the northern areas.

Mr. Chairman, this side of the House is trying to ensure that we have home care not just for today, not just for tomorrow and not just for when we need it, which for some of us may be in a short 20 or 25 years.

An Honourable Member: Or more. Do not rush it.

Mrs. Render: Or more. But for our children and for our grandchildren. There are many services out there, many in the private sector which are providing excellent services, and some of them--I just want to reiterate again that one of them, which most of you are familiar with, is the Victorian Order of Nurses, and the province has been using this service for many, many years.

One of the programs that I forgot to mention was the intravenous therapy program, and the department has funded the St. Boniface Hospital for the co-ordination and delivery of this particular program, and the VON in this instance was the successful bidder to provide the community nursing service to this program.

Are the members opposite going to say that just because the VON is a private organization and that there was some competition introduced into this process that that automatically means a lesser quality of service? The members opposite seem to have a real fear of competition.

Mrs. Render: There is nothing wrong with competition if it ensures quality and better quality, but the members opposite seem to think that the only time a good service is delivered is if it is delivered by government. Well, that is just a slap in the face to the VON who have been in this province for well over 90 years.

We have many other services here in Winnipeg that are providing good home care services; Central Health Services, the Ten Ten Sinclair, Luther Home. Now here is Luther Home. I have got friends who have been involved with this particular facility, and the department provides funding to Luther Home which is to help co-ordinate and provide personal care services for eight young, disabled residents of the Luther Home apartment complex.

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

Mrs. Render: Well, I am sorry that my time has run out. I just again wish to support our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) who has had the courage to look at a different way of delivering service.

* (1600)

Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): It is a privilege to be able to stand up and speak against the motion moved by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and I would like to start out by saying that our Minister of Health is very conscientious, very responsible in his approach to health care and by his actions that he is demonstrating now will ensure that health care will be with us in this province for many years to come for our children and for our grandchildren.

The last time I spoke I ran out of time in terms of talking about the budgetary dollars that are spent on home care on an annual basis, and I would just like to go over some of the summary points that I was going to make in that regard. In 1988-89 our cost per patient in home care was $1,667. In 1995-96 this cost per patient is now at $3,160 or an 89 percent increase in costs. Now, if we take that 89 percent increase and we project it over the next eight years of this program, we would come up with a cost per patient of roughly--round numbers--$6,000. If the number of patients over the next eight years were to double, then that cost in terms of the Provincial Treasury would be $310 million.

Another very interesting point is that since 1988, when we started out with 23,403 patients, we have moved up to 26,129 patients now or an increase of 2,726 patients over the eight years, and we have added $43.5 million to the budget at the same time. If you take a look at the number of dollars spent per patient added to home care, we are talking of a value of something in the neighbourhood of $15,980.

If anybody was to say, well, why do you have to change the system, why do you have to go and take a look at the competition in the system, I say why not? Why not? We have a system that is a very good system, but it needs to be tailored, needs to be refined, and it needs to be adjusted to meet the future needs of everybody living in this province. If we do not start doing it now and taking a look at how home care is delivered in Manitoba, down the road we may be at a point where we will have to actually cut home care services because the dollars are not there to fund it. So the idea is to work now to see what will happen with the competition in the system, to monitor it, evaluate it and see if indeed home care in this province could be delivered with a very high level of quality to the patients and service to the patients and, at the same time, being the most cost effective in terms of the taxpayers’ dollars.

The thing I would like to spend a bit of time on now is in terms of what the government is saying and what is being said are two different things when we come down to what home care workers are being told is happening and what patients are being told is happening and what actually government is planning on doing. I would just like to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, first off, that no more than 25 percent of the services in Winnipeg will be up for tender for contracting out, no more than 25 percent. Secondly, there will be no costs to the clients. All the costs will be covered by government. Thirdly, there will be no change in the services provided. All the services that are presently being provided to home care patients in Winnipeg and in rural Manitoba will continue. Fourthly, the government will continue to monitor the needs of clients and ensure that those needs are being met. So again, in terms of the contracting out of the services for home care delivery within Winnipeg for the 25 percent of the services, they will be monitored and evaluated, and there will be no change--and I reiterate this again--no change in rural or northern service delivery. That is a very important point, and that is the story that is not getting out in rural Manitoba, that there is going to be no change to service in rural Manitoba.

Now the other thing is that when the government did have discussions with the MGEU, the offer that was put on the table was that this initiative would be for one year only. How can you not accept that? It is going to be in place for one year. You evaluate it; you see whether you want to go ahead with it another year. There would be an employee and client evaluation of the entire initiative. So you would have discussion with the clients, have discussion with the employees to see if indeed the service was being carried out that was intended.

Then the third point, and my honourable colleague from St. Vital (Mrs. Render) reiterated this earlier, is that if the service is there, there is nothing preventing the MGEU from bidding on contracting those services. You get the best of both worlds if they were to do this, because not only--the fearmongering that is going on is that they are going to have a reduction in wages. Well, if they bid on the contract, they can set their wages that they want to get out of the program and then determine what their costs will be, what they have to charge for the service. It is a win-win situation if the MGEU were to put a bid on the contract because, not only would we have quality service to clients, we would have it at a cost-effective method. It would still be government employees working as a unit together and sharing in this whole process.

The other thing I was mentioning the other day--and I would just like to quote, Mr. Chairman, our honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) who was talking and making a presentation on the Budget Debate. I think what he had to say is very profound in today’s society, and I think that it was worthwhile repeating his words. He says, the people of Manitoba now understand, the people of Canada now understand what uncontrolled spending has meant to the affairs that worry all of us. What has, perhaps, been most forcefully brought to the attention of all Canadians is the fact that it is not just the mean old Tories that have had to do this, that it is Liberal governments, that it is New Democratic Party governments. It is governments from all sides of the political spectrum that have come to exactly the same conclusion, that we have to address the fiscal problems that our province and that our nation face.

That is a reality today, that we have to face those fiscal problems that are facing us today in this age throughout Manitoba and throughout Canada, and so it behooves us that in this type of a process, if you are looking at health care delivery, we would take a look at alternate means, alternate methods of delivering health care in Manitoba. Home care is no exception to this fact; it has to be studied.

* (1610)

I would just like to mention that the member for Swan River was speaking earlier, and she has now twigged her ears, she has said that there is no guarantee that if we introduce this program in Manitoba there will be an increase in quality of program. I ask her back, can you guarantee me that there will be an increase in the quality of care given if it stays as it is? There are no guarantees in this world that, indeed, something will be better than it is until you try it. You have to try it to find out if it works. We want to increase the level of service to clients in Manitoba. We want to make sure that the quality of service is there, the quality of care is there, and at the same time being the most efficient to the taxpayer of Manitoba.

With those few words, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time.

Mr. Chairperson: Before we get started though, may I advise the committee that again we seem to be leading on towards baiting each other during this debate and it is not adding to the decorum. I would ask the honourable members to be posing their remarks through the Chair rather than to each other.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I just hope your advice was not predicated on what you think I might say. Frankly, the concern that I have and one of the reasons that I want to rise again today to speak to this motion is that in 10 minutes, I suppose, one does not have the best opportunity yesterday to expound on some of the other aspects, some of the more personal aspects of a disagreement that we see between the delivery of home care services in this province and our government and our minister.

I certainly want to put it on the record that the opposition, who have from time to time attempted to vilify and categorize the Minister of Health as anything other than a very caring, very dedicated and a very efficient individual, are far from the mark and probably do themselves a disservice as much as they do him. One of the things that concerns me whenever there is an ongoing disagreement between government and any sector of public service is that there begins to become entrenched positions that are based not on facts, but which are based on fear, innuendo and misrepresentation of the situation as it is.

That is, and can be one of the more troubling aspects of any type of an employer-employee relationship and one which I know, from time to time, we all take the opportunity to expound and in fact to vilify, I suppose, the motives on either side of the House or on either side of this disagreement.

If there is anybody out there other than my grandchildren who may choose to read Hansard, I want to make sure that it is on the record that in my view this is a disagreement and a dispute that need never have occurred, that in fact there is every good reason to do what we are doing. There is also every good reason to make sure that those who are impacted by the issue are able to think their way through why a government would possibly want to make these types of changes and why the Minister of Health would want to make these changes. The fact is it has to be put in the larger context. The very fact that there is more money going into home care in this province should be the first step in assuring the public and the workers that this is not necessarily an issue that needs to be a complete break between the two parties.

There are a number of people who I have more than a passing acquaintance with who work in the system not only as home care workers but also as co-ordinators. Certainly, I think that everyone would agree that there are improved ways of doing business. The day comes, whether it is my own business or whether it is my own responsibilities as an MLA, when the day comes that we say that we have done everything or that there is no further change that can be made, is the day that we are no longer valuable to the constituents that we serve. The fact is we have to continually challenge ourselves to make sure that we are providing the most efficient and most progressive opportunities for delivery of health care closer to the home than we have ever done in the life of health care system at any time.

I go back to the previous Minister of Health, the member for Pembina, and him striking an arrangement with some of the physically handicapped groups for self-managed care. I would like to put on the record that I have been a proponent and a supporter of that concept for many years before I knew what the catch word might be to describe it.

The fact is government-organized managers and those who might choose to provide free advice should never believe that there is not a better way of delivering a service and, in fact, those who are receiving the service can have a good deal of input on how capably that service is delivered, not only with co-operation but with comment. When I look at the opportunities out there that we are being forced to deal with, and I suppose a problem in the eyes of many people and those who are progressive, they will refer very often to a problem as nothing more than an opportunity that they have not yet figured out, and that is probably what we are faced with in health care in many respects. We know that we cannot deliver health care through the system that we have traditionally become accustomed to.

Those of us who are in the range of 40 to 65 years of age, or at least 40 to 60 years of age, probably historians in the future will look back and say that we lived in the golden years of social justice and welfare state in this country and probably reflect very kindly or very unkindly on how we emerged from the last three decades from which we have held an extremely high level of employment, extremely high standard of living, with opportunities that have been unparalleled in many respects.

What has that got to do with home care and the delivery of home care? It has everything to do with it, because as we now have to deal with the deck that we have been burdened with, and as we now have to go forward with a better delivery system--and we have to provide better; it cannot be of a lesser standard--but we have to provide a better system for dealing with those who need help in their homes. We cannot continue to do it in the high-cost facilities of our hospitals or even in our extended care homes because, in fact, today’s senior, I think, far too often is given the opportunity or has taken the opportunity to go into a senior care home when they might rather have had the care delivered closer to home. So, when we look at our budget, our budget demonstrates that that is the direction we want to take the delivery of care in this province.

I want to make it clear that in my mind there is an abuse that is occurring today. That is an abuse of--first of all, we could probably classify it as an abuse of the facts or an abuse of perception. In reality, certainly in rural Manitoba, there are a large number of the caregivers who are being scared out of their wits in some respects by comments that are being made about what could happen, what is down the road, that they better make a stand now or they are never going to have an opportunity to have a permanent job in the health care delivery system again. All those sorts of questions are being raised.

I will tell you, the only question that was brought to me by a recipient of home care was, No. 1, that they wanted that to continue, but that they wanted me to clearly state to them that the amount it was going to cost them would be limited. Now where did they get that idea that it was going to start costing them anything? Because there was a real concentrated effort out there to put misinformation in the hands of the caregivers, which inevitably ends up in the homes, in the kitchens, in the washrooms of their clients, when they are talking to them as they are providing them with some of the care that they need.

It puts them in a very awkward situation. Not only is it an abuse of the seniors or those who are vulnerable and need this service because they are being frightened, but, frankly, and I want it clearly on the record, that I believe that we all have a better responsibility to not abuse the workers out there who find themselves not getting all of the facts.

All of the facts are clearly on the record, and I would suggest to the members and all the members of the public who might to have an opportunity to hear or read this that, if they determine the facts and look at the long-range plan, this will allow us to deliver services in a much more caring and a much more broad-based manner, and it need not to have degenerated to where it is today.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I, too, would like to speak to the resolution that has currently been put forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). I think that, in the timing of change we are going through now, the ideological arguments that are being put forward in the House and in direct opposition to the Minister of Health, I guess, reflect the time of the period that we are in, in the sense where we have one group of individuals putting forth a status quo, hold-the-line type of attitude. On this side of the House, as government, we are looking at every alternative that we can possibly come up with to, not only in my mind, make home care a better situation for the people that need it, the people that are now suffering because of the strike action taken by the union.

* (1620)

I would like to put a few comments on the record on their behalf. I have had the opportunity to speak to several of my constituents that were being serviced by the home care staff. There is, I guess, a real feeling of disappointment. They certainly agree that the care that they have been given has been top-notch, and I do not think that there is anybody in this House that would dispute that. I think that the people are a special breed of people. They are kind, they are caring, they are considerate, and I think that they go far beyond probably what is required of them in their job to create an environment for the people who are most vulnerable, to enjoy the part of their life with the things that they cannot do for themselves.

Certainly, I want to go on the record as commending the home care employees. I admire what they do. I have family that is involved with what they are doing, and the comments back that I get from them are very positive, and it seems to always be positive.

I think the real issue that I see coming forward is the fact of competition. I do not know whether we can ever have competition in this world, be it no matter where we are or what we are in--be it sports, be it business, be it in any facet of the world--we have competition, and competition tends to, I think, bring out the best qualities in all people. I think it is very important that we do not rule out this attitude of-- it seems like the members opposite have such a fear of competition that they will do anything and everything within their power to deny competition.

As I have in the past, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to suggest that, in checking, perhaps, the resumes of most of the members opposite, they have been in positions before their employment as members of opposition where there has been no competition, where there has been no real desire to do a better job or to be more qualified or to be more competent simply because that has not been a requirement. I think today’s world, and certainly on this side of the House, anything that can be injected into any system that creates a better system, a more equal system, a more competitive system in the sense of economics, has to be considered, and I commend the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) for his stance that he has taken. I certainly understand his position. I think it is a very trying time for the minister. Certainly, he is dealing with a lot of heart issues, and when you deal with heart issues, you have to keep the perspective as to what is best.

Members from the opposite time after time get up and speak about personal experiences that they have had with this system. I accept everything that they say in the sense that we can all find individuals that we know personally that are experiencing exactly what is happening today in the home care world. But that does not mean that we have to say that we accept it as it is and that there is no change necessary, because I think we all agree in a world that has changed so rapidly in the last five years, that we have to change and adapt and adjust to also meet the needs and the requirements, and also the financial implications that come with today’s economic situation. I think we are all aware of the cutbacks that have been done at the federal level, and I think that, as responsible government, we have to deal with those cutbacks, not constantly or necessarily all the time complain about the cutbacks that are taking place, but what we can do to make it better and take advantage of the situation.

One of the things that I have learned in my short time in government, and it was brought to my attention by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), was that whenever--it actually was a definition of the word crisis. The Japanese have a term that they use to explain what a crisis is and that word is opportunity. I think whenever we have a crisis, instead of looking at it from the negative side which the members opposite tend to do on most issues in this House, we have to look at it as an opportunity.

We are under the strain of all economic belt-tightening that is going on around the world, not just in the province or not just in our communities but throughout Canada, and again I suggest through North America. We have to deal with those issues head on and many times decisions that are made are not popular. Perhaps I would even suggest the odd time we have made a mistake, and when we do, I think, that we are willing to stand up and admit that.

I think when we admit that we have made a mistake, I think this brings me back to the point that the suggestion to introduce this competitiveness into 25 percent of the industry is the first step in the seeking-answers position. It is not something that we have thrust upon the entire group of people and we are saying, let us take a look at it. Why would we put our heads in the sand and ignore something when we have an opportunity to put things out there, to let people see how they work and to see if it might work for us to our benefit?

I know again that the members opposite, as I sit day in and day out, that the status quo would be very satisfactory to them. But unfortunately as government you have to make tough decisions and you have to make decisions, period, and I think that is what we are doing as a government. I think that the minister, as I travelled with him, and I can certainly say he has been in my riding several times, spoke to several groups of people, large numbers, and has listened to them. When he comes out to meet with the people of my constituency, he does not do the speaking, he does the listening. I think that is a real positive aspect, and I think that is probably one of the main criteria that makes a good Minister of Health, is one that has to listen to what the people that he is serving have to say.

I think what they have said on several occasions is that, you know, we have some concerns but we also trust your decisions because you are in the best position to make those decisions. I think as a government he has stood strong and stood tall in making those decisions and I know it is, certainly again, easy. I always think of my life before politics in the competitive world. I can remember a story that my father used to tell me when I was just a small boy about competitiveness, and a gentleman came into our place of business which we were the only business in the community dealing in that specific aspect, so therefore we had a monopoly. [interjection]

Yes, yes, we did, to the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). I would like to suggest that it was perceived as a monopoly in our community, and people would come in and say to my father, it must be very nice to be the only business in the town. I can remember my father to this day saying, if you are willing to take the risk, I am willing to put up the facility and the property right beside my place to compete with me, because he knew that competition would build his business stronger and more efficiently, quicker than no competition.

That is something that has been ingrained in me from Day One, that the competition and the suggestion that, if they see somebody else doing something better, people are going to bring their level up to that level, or they are, unfortunately, going to pass by the way. I think that in that aspect that is probably one of the real benefits of introducing some competition into our health home care system. Competition is not something to be afraid of. It is something you can clutch and grasp and improve yourself to meet those--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 4:30 p.m., committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): As previously agreed, the hour being 4:30 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).