ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Sciences Centre
Capital Projects
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the acting Premier or the Minister of Health.
This government has made a number of capital promises, usually just prior to the election, dealing with the health care, hospital spending and personal care home spending. Just before the election in 1990, they made promises on capital. Again, just prior to the election in '95, they made promises on capital and, of course, these promises evaporated into the thin air like a lot of other promises this government made.
I would like to ask the government, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), or acting Premier or Minister of Health, can the government indicate what the impacts are of the cancellation of the capital project at the Health Sciences Centre? What are the impacts on readmissions of adult patients and the quality and quantity of care for children's pediatric services?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): One of the costs associated with the capital program, Madam Speaker, is the interest part of it. We would like very much to get away from the requirement to spend so many taxpayers' dollars on interest charges and, hopefully, redesign a capital program that can be carried out in such a way that we live within our means. It is not easy, however, when this year we are looking at $600 million worth of interest charges. If I had that $600 million to use for capital construction costs in the health system, we certainly would not have the challenges that we have in front of us. We can thank honourable members opposite for that millstone around the necks of ourselves and future generations.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, of course, the Minister of Health made his promises in March of 1995 and, again, the government made their promises in July of 1990 with all information in front of them. I would like to table a memo written by the president of the Health Sciences Centre dealing with the deficiencies on capital spending and its impact on patient care based on the government's flip-flop or broken promise on capital spending at the Health Sciences Centre.
In this report, Madam Speaker, they say that this has had a negative impact on patient readmission issues and it seems to be contrary to the government's position on so-called reform. The report goes on to say that, according to the children's program team, to leave these areas without capital spending poses a significant risk to the quality and quantity of care available in the children's program. Would the minister please advise Manitobans why he has left children without the quality and quantity of care, contrary to his election promise?
Mr. McCrae: It is interesting to listen to New Democrats one day condemn the Health Sciences Centre in favour of community hospitals and on another day to come and speak out in favour of a capital program at Health Sciences Centre. No one in the whole system, Madam Speaker, wants to leave any group in our population, above all including children, in any way disadvantaged because of the necessity to pay off so many millions of dollars in interest costs loaded onto our shoulders by the previous government in this province.
We are working with our partners in health. We recognize that there will be future needs and we are working very closely with the various proponents of the various projects to see if we can give a proper priority. One of the highest priority items in the capital budget is the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. We are working closely with the foundation to ensure that those who need cancer services now and in the future will have their needs met, and the same would go for the needs at the Children's Hospital.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot make a promise prior to the election, without the financial information and the health information, and say now that was the wrong decision. Either you were telling us the truth before the election or you are not telling us the truth right now, which I suspect is the case.
This report is devastating to the government's broken promise on health care capital. It is devastating to the stewardship that is lacking from the Minister of Health and the total government about saying one thing before an election and another thing after.
I want to ask the minister, what is the impact of his broken promise on children's pediatric services, when I quote from the report that waiting lists of up to two years, currently 543 children, mean that some children who require assessment and treatment do not receive this until they become of school age and receive these services from schools? Early intervention affords the greatest benefit. Why is this minister not giving our children early intervention and giving our children the benefit of a decent health care system?
Mr. McCrae: I suppose one might be led to think it might be nice if we could have it both ways. You know, nobody can, but the NDP thinks they can have it all ways. They can be all things to all people, and they have demonstrated over and over again that that is quite impossible.
Madam Speaker, the commitment to health care evidenced by the budgets of the Filmon government far outweigh any commitment ever demonstrated by honourable members opposite. The Doer-Pawley government of the--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: --'80s showed very little commitment to the health of Manitobans as evidenced by the budgets that they brought in, but certainly the best evidence of their lack of concern for future generations and the future health needs of Manitobans is in the fact that they tripled the debt of this province in a short seven years and placed on the backs of Manitobans today and Manitobans in the future a huge burden of debt, which is money that we cannot spend today for capital improvements to the Health Sciences Centre or any other health facility in this province.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Report Tabling Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from a parish bulletin that was delivered this Sunday. It says: In regard to the home care situation, this is not a question of competition versus monopoly. Unlike consumers, the individual patient will have no say in who delivers the service. They will receive care from a private monopoly instead of a public monopoly. The only people who stand to gain in this move to privatize are the owners of home care companies, not the patients, not the workers and not the provincial coffers. This move by government has forced the home care workers into a strike situation in order to force the government to stop its privatization plan and protect the future.
Madam Speaker, nobody in Manitoba except the minister and his private company friends agree with this move. Will the minister today at least table the studies or any documentation to show why they are proceeding down this ridiculous path of privatization, and end the strike today?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Certainly nobody on this side of the House forced anybody to withdraw their services from our clients. We have gone over the history of the beginning of this dispute ad nauseam in this House. It is certainly not new. The honourable member has made it clear through his friends in the union movement that this has nothing to do with patients. The honourable member will use the comments of a priest, and he will use the comments of three busloads of Americans if he has to. The fact is the honourable member and his friends in the union movement have made it very clear that their dispute is an idealistic one; it has nothing to do with the clients of our system.
* (1350)
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, would you kindly ask the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) to table the document that he referred to?
Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader does not have a point of order.
Mr. Chomiak: On the same point of order, I would be prepared to table this document and provide it to all government members so that they could see it.
Private Home Care Services
Information Tabling Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Why has the minister refused in the Estimates to provide us with a list of all of the private companies providing home care in the province of Manitoba? Will he today table a list of all the private companies providing home care, how much we are paying them and what the conditions of their work are? Will he do that today?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I do not think the honourable member has that right. We have been going through some pretty extensive review of the Estimates of Expenditure for the Department of Health, and even with the time we have spent on it, I think there is so much area we could have or should have discussed. There does not seem to be enough time in the day for us to discuss the areas of interest in the health system.
I went through a whole list of all of the contracts that are part of the delivery of home care services. We referred to the Victorian Order of Nurses. We have referred to the fact that the Central Health company provides backup services, the fact that, thanks to the private companies, right now we are able to provide services to people because the MGEU has removed the services of the members of that organization to our clients. And the Victorian Order of Nurses on the home I.V. contract. I am not sure to what the honourable member is referring. I certainly have not refused, I do not think, to make--well, the honourable member will have to be more specific. He says I did, and I would like to know in what area I made that refusal.
Home Care Program
Tender Proposal
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Since the minister refused in Estimates to provide us the list with all of the companies providing private home care, will the minister today provide us with something else he also refused in Estimates, and that is a list of what the tender proposals are so the public will have an idea of what the government plans to do in this ridiculous privatization scheme prior to the government launching this ridiculous plan? Will he provide us with all of the tender information so the public will know what the government is going to be wasting its money on?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member may not know much about tendering but when you go to public tender, the documents are public and will be public when the tenders are put out.
With respect to other information, I will check my records but I do not know that I missed any out. I know that the Seven Oaks Hospital contracted with a company called We Care to provide services and the We Care people and the hospital had a very successful project there which demonstrated to the patients and to others, certainly medical people as well, that flexibility is what we need more of, not less of, in our home care system. Above all, we cannot let one group of people shut down the home care system. Nobody should have that kind of power.
* (1355)
Home Care Appeal Panel
Appeals Summary
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, this minister refuses over and over again to answer legitimate questions. We have asked the Minister of Health to table any credible support that he has for his plan. One of his answers has been to cite the hearings of the home care appeal panel, suggesting that patients are appealing poor quality care. Will the minister tell the House the actual subject of the majority of appeals to his home care appeal panel? What did they really appeal, Mr. Minister?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The appeal panel was put in place in 1993-94 at a time when cleaning and laundry issues were very much the subject of public discussion, and the majority of the complaints at that time dealing with our appeal panel had to do with cleaning and laundry.
The honourable member asks about studies. Why is it New Democrats do not want to talk about the Price Waterhouse report? We understand--[interjection] Oh, they do not want to hear about that one. The New Democrats spent large numbers of taxpayers' dollars for this report that told them what was wrong with the way they were running the home care system. We are trying to fix that, and some of the things that are in this report demonstrate very clearly that the honourable member for Kildonan has the wrong policy. His policy is to go back to the system we had in the first place. Madam Speaker, we want a better system than that.
Mr. Sale: Will the minister table today a summary of all home care appeals in the past 12 months, showing the reason for the appeal, the disposition of the appeal and the time elapsed between the appeal and its final disposition? Will he table that report?
Mr. McCrae: I know that in the first year of its operation there were about a thousand calls to the appeal panel. There were over 230 appeals and many, many more that were resolved without the necessity of anything formal being done. The fact that we, the Filmon government, put in place an appeal panel told the client and told the people who run our program that we are going to resolve issues, and the most favourable result of having an appeal panel is that everybody works harder to resolve problems before they have to come to any kind of formal disposition, but statistics relating to the appeal panel is something I can make available to honourable members.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister admit today that, contrary to what he has said in the House, most of the appeals, the majority of the appeals, are in regard not to the quality of service but to government's denial of service to clients who needed service? Clients are appealing their right to service, their need for service. They are not appealing quality, contrary to what this minister has said.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member is quite incorrect. I have not said, I think, anything contrary to what the findings of the appeal panel are, but to listen to the honourable member you would think people would be getting more service than they want and complaining to the appeal panel that they are getting too much service. What does the honourable member think an appeal panel should be there for? It is for people to complain that they are not getting enough service, not getting it often enough and not getting levels that they need. That is what an appeal panel is for. Does the honourable member think we are all stupid over here, Madam Speaker?
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, over the weekend I spoke to many people in rural Manitoba who are concerned about this plan by this government to privatize home care. Not one person in rural Manitoba said they agree with the government's plan. Everyone believes that this is just a beginning of an end to our health care system and we will see much more privatization if the government gets away with this. People have lost confidence in this minister and, in fact, they would like to see this minister resign.
Will the Minister of Health recognize the opposition of the public to his plan to privatize and move to end the strike so those people who have been delivering home care can continue to do the job that they have been doing so well?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if I had chosen to follow the advice of honourable members opposite, I never should have got the job in the first place. If all I was going to do is try to take our health system back 40 years, as suggested by honourable members opposite, I should never have accepted the appointment in the first place. The honourable member is very wrong to suggest that people in Manitoba do not support changes that will ensure the sustainability of our health care system. She is very wrong about that. She is very selective to whom she speaks when she looks for advice about how to run the system in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, I have been working earnestly with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and others in our negotiations with the Manitoba Government Employees' Union. It is my fervent hope, and it was from the beginning, that there not even be a strike in the first place but there having been one, it is my fervent hope that we will see a conclusion to this disruption just as soon as is humanly possible.
* (1400)
Privatization--Rural Manitoba
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Just for the minister's information, I am not selective. I speak to many people.
Will the minister tell the people of rural Manitoba that, even though home care workers were sent a letter that home care in rural Manitoba was not going to be affected by this privatization scheme, that in fact is not true, and that in fact within a year we will see home care going under regional health boards and that is a step towards privatization? Will he tell rural Manitobans the truth about health care?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Yes, Madam Speaker, it is rural Manitobans who had such a role in the creation of regional health authorities which was one of the key recommendations of the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council which is rural people making recommendations about health delivery in rural and northern Manitoba, so of course we are listening to rural Manitobans.
Ms. Wowchuk: Then if the minister is listening to rural Manitobans, will he name rural Manitobans who told him that home care should be privatized?--because he will not find any; they are against this privatization scheme.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member could not be more wrong, Madam Speaker. Manitobans everywhere want to see their tax dollars spent in an efficient way. They want their tax dollars to be used to bring about a proper result in the delivery of home care services in our province.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to quickly complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: Rural and northern Manitobans are no different from any other Manitoban. They do not want solutions that are old-fashioned, hidebound and do not work anymore.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Employee Turnovers
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is too for the Minister of Health. We in the Liberal Party believe that the privatization for profit of home care services will in fact have a negative impact on the quality of services.
In 1992, in British Columbia, there was a study that was conducted in which it talked about the yearly turnover rates of home care workers. It showed a 50 percent turnover rate for workers in the private sector, a 37 percent for nonprofit sector and a 32 percent for the unionized sector.
My question to the minister is, will the minister not agree that under his system there will be a higher yearly turnover as a direct result of the privatization for profit of home care workers?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member uses, when it comes to policy making, the well-known and not-so-well-respected crystal-ball method, Madam Speaker. We have some objectives to achieve and in achieving those objectives we have--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: In efforts to achieve those objectives, we have invited the private sector, the nonprofit sector, the profit sector, we have even invited the Manitoba Government Employees' Union to put forward a bid themselves to provide services. So if the honourable member's concern is to make sure that the Manitoba Government Employees' Union remains involved in some way, he might encourage them to take advantage of the offer that has been made.
In fact, we have gone further than that. The honourable member is in favour of an uneven playing field in these matters, Madam Speaker, and he has made that very clear. He wants special treatment for somebody who is not making any profits and he has made that very clear. He is an honest politician. He has said, we want an unlevel playing field in that particular marketplace, and we are providing assistance to the MGEU should they wish to access that.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health.
Will he, at the very least, acknowledge that the privatization for profit will see a higher worker turnover on a yearly basis and that in turn is going to have a negative impact on the quality of home care services that are being provided for our No. 1 concern, being the client?
Mr. McCrae: I have warned the honourable member about this, but he chooses to ignore my warning. I mean, he is getting very, very close to the NDP officials position, which is, go back to the system we had in the first place.
Madam Speaker, the system we had in the first place, while a very good system, is not good enough. It is not efficient enough; it is not responsive enough. How many times has Vera Chernecki said to me, your Home Care program is not responsive. Now, all of a sudden, oh, it is responsive, do not fix anything because it is not broken. The honourable member is wrong about that. All he has to do is read the tons and tons of studies that I have delivered to him. If he read those, he would know that there are some things that we can improve around here.
Privatization--Moratorium
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, will the minister at least acknowledge that there may be solutions that he has yet to have explored, and that a 12-month moratorium on this process is indeed in the best interests of the clients, the health care workers and individual Manitobans who have an interest in this particular issue? What, can the minister tell us, does this government have to lose by putting it off by one year? What does this government have to lose other than possibly--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Well, it comes as a breath of fresh air to hear the honourable member for Inkster suggest that there are creative options that we can look at, and I do appreciate that. Just to say, go back to the system we had in the first place, which is official NDP policy, does not cut it. It does not cut it with honourable members on this side of the House and it certainly does not cut it with the clients of our home care system who have been telling us through the appeal panel for home care and through other mechanisms, certainly through mail to me and maybe to honourable members--although all of a sudden that mail has just disappeared; there are no problems in the home care system all of a sudden--but it is nice to hear the honourable member for Inkster say that there are opportunities for change and for improvements, and that is exactly what we are embarked on. We will see improvements in our home care system.
* * *
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, in our final Question Period last week, I urged the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to act personally to help resolve the home care dispute before leaving the country for 10 days. Unfortunately, the Premier did not, and we are stuck where, on a day-in, day-out basis, we see just how much chaos we have in health care, particularly with this minister who here again in Question Period has refused to answer any questions about home care.
The people of Manitoba cannot wait, and if it takes adjourning this House to give this government the ability to get its shambles of a government in order, I would move, notwithstanding our rule, section 30--I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that this House is now adjourned.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. A motion has been moved. The motion moved by the honourable member for Thompson is not in order according to our Rule 30.(2). A motion to adjourn the House shall not be made until the Orders of the Day have been entered upon.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling.
* (1410)
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please rise.
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 31, Nays 21.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.
* (1510)
. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Adjournment Motion
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. If the honourable member for Inkster's matter of privilege relates to a matter that has just taken place, I will hear it now; otherwise, there is ten minutes of Question Period remaining and we will deal with the grievance at the completion of Question Period.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, according to Beauchesne's Citation No. 33, it states that “the most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them.” In our general rules on page 19, 30.(2), it states “A motion to adjourn the House shall not be made until the Orders of the Day have been entered upon.”
Madam Speaker, on page 74 of our rule book it states: There are privileges of the House as well as of members individually. Wilful disobedience to orders and rules of Parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions, insults and obstructions during debate are breaches of the privileges of the House.
Madam Speaker, I would refer to Beauchesne's Citation 1: "The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are: To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time . . . ."
I do believe that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), being the opposition House leader, is fully aware of the rules and fully aware of the vote and what actually was being proposed. It was just the other day when the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) asked the committee to have a recess. The minister, on several occasions, stood up and said, in the name of our clients--and I do not have the Hansard, did not have the opportunity to get some of the actual quotations but in essence it was a personal appeal from the Minister of Health to recess so that the government could attempt to get some sort of an essential services agreement.
We disagreed back then with the recess primarily because we did not feel that the government had any good intentions on going back to the bargaining table and providing some sort of an incentive. If at any point in time we as a Liberal caucus felt that the government was sincere and was going to--if we provided a recess or if we were to have an adjournment that the home care services strike would come to an end, we would be more than happy to facilitate that. We would be more than happy to do that. We do not believe that is going to be the case.
What we have seen over the last number of weeks is a lot of frustration. I too have experienced some of that frustration in questioning this government, as the New Democratic Party has. We share in the frustration. The Minister of Health will say that he too experienced frustration. Ultimately, what we believe is that we can do a better service to our home care clients, the home care workers and those Manitobans who are watching this issue so very closely if in fact we continue the debate on the home care services, continue to attempt to frustrate the government into finding that it is moving in the wrong direction.
But to move a motion which the New Democrats know is completely out of order has, in essence, used up an hour of the legislative agenda. I know the government and the opposition were trying to get us as a Liberal caucus or informing us that they would like to have additional Estimates time. They are talking about taking away time from private members' hour, something that we have done in the past, in order to allow for more Estimates time so that we would be able to deal with more of the department. Why? Because we are running low on Estimates. We are going to be adjourning on June 6, according to our new rules, so we are running low on time. Time is very important. Time is very scarce inside this Chamber.
There was an attempt, and we can attempt to do it in the committee, in terms of trying to get a recess. There are many different ways in which we can move motions, but to do it in the way that we saw an hour ago, I and my Liberal colleagues do not believe that was the best use of the scarce time.
I would ultimately argue that right after Question Period we are going to be going into the Health Estimates. There is no doubt going to be votes that will occur with regard to the Minister of Health's salary, quite possibly. I do not want to indicate our intentions, at least at this time, Madam Speaker, but there is a more appropriate time, a time in which we will be able to continue on in terms of lobbying. Yes, we might still continue to get somewhat frustrated, and likewise the New Democrats, but let us not waste what scarce time--when the government House leader asks the Liberal Party or asks the Liberal members in terms of leave to allow us to have Estimates during Thursdays, how do I justify putting up very important private members' business when in fact we just sat through an hour which has chewed off two hours of the Estimates time?
So having said that, Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that the Speaker take this motion under advisement and report back to the House.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, first of all, I must indicate that I think the Liberal member, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), was trying to justify the position they took in a vote that just took place, and that is not the subject of a matter of privilege. In fact, the motion itself is somewhat difficult to understand because he is asking that you take a motion under advisement and the motion is to take a motion under advisement. It really lacks some clarity. If the real intent of the matter of privilege was to raise why we did what we did today, I think it is very clear to all Manitobans that there is chaos with this government. We have a major crisis in health care and there is chaos with this government.
We have risen in Question Period day in, day out. We saw, again, we got no answers from the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), none. We asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon)--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that he should be speaking to the matter of privilege that was raised by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
The honourable member for Thompson, to address the matter of privilege.
* (1520)
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, indeed, we are very concerned about putting remarks on the record about this, because we took an extraordinary step today because we feel that this is a government in chaos. We asked on Thursday, before the Premier (Mr. Filmon) left for an international trip of 10 days, we asked the Premier to get involved to help resolve the home care situation. That did not happen. We asked repeatedly in Question Period today, time and time again, for the minister to answer questions to deal with it. If there is a crisis over there, a crisis of leadership, and if it takes adjourning the House for today to give them time to get that in order, we believe that is time well worth spending.
I have seen political issues come and go, but I have never seen a case where it has been more clear from the public. You know, it is not just the home care workers, not just home care clients, but virtually everybody in this province, except for the 31 members of the government benches, knows that the plan to privatize home care is wrong and should be withdrawn.
By the way, if it means, as someone who has a great deal of respect for the rules, that I ask notwithstanding as I did earlier that we adjourn the House, if it means having votes, we will do whatever we can in opposition, but there is only one group of people that is blocking a settlement of the home care dispute. It is the Premier--when he is here--and the remaining 31 government members. The message we have for the government, and perhaps the Liberal member confused that, the message we have on behalf of the people of Manitoba is, settle the home care dispute, stop the privatization.
Madam Speaker: A matter of privilege is a very serious matter and I am reviewing the motion put by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I would appreciate the co-operation of all honourable members in the House.
The motion in question, and I will read it, was moved by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that the Speaker take this motion under advisement and report back to the House.
The motion that I have just reread into the record is out of order.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I just provided the Clerk another written motion. If I can have the piece of paper back, I will be more than happy to read that into the record.
Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member for The Maples, that this matter be taken into consideration by the Speaker and report back to the House.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I ruled the initial motion out of order, and the honourable member for Inkster wishes to pursue his matter of privilege and has moved a new motion which reads: It has been moved by the honourable member for Inkster, seconded by the honourable member for The Maples, that this matter be taken into consideration by the Speaker and report back to the House.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: Just on a point of order, the member moved a motion that you indicated was not in order. Is he now rising on a new matter of privilege to be able to move the subsequent motion?
Madam Speaker: My understanding is that it is a new motion on the same matter of privilege.
I will indeed take this motion under advisement and report back to the House.
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute--Resolution
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we have--on Question Period?
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, we are resuming Question Period and there is 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if the government does not want to follow up on what we are offering, I would like to ask--since I did ask this question of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) before he left on his overseas trip whether he would get involved--whoever on that side of the House is going to be in charge of this critical situation for the remaining part of this week, what instructions the Premier gave to any one of them in terms of this matter, or do we have to wait now for the Premier to return from an overseas trip before we can get any resolution of this critical issue?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I rise on two counts. One is to say that this government is fully in charge of the issue which is before us, and that is to make sure that the home care clients are fully looked after, the responsible position that this government has taken from Day One, unlike the members opposite. I get equally as upset with the member for Thompson who keeps breaking the rules of this House and making reference to our Premier who is out of the country getting a very well-deserved award.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Manitoba, our Premier is getting and receiving a special recognition of which the members of this House, I would think, would take under advisement--[interjection] That is right--and take some pride in the fact that we have a Manitoban being honoured in the manner in which he is being honoured. I take objection to the continued reference being made to the fact that the Premier is in some way not looking after his responsibilities. He is doing what is absolutely expected of him.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the member suggested I had broken the rules. I made reference before the Premier left. I made no reference to his immediate presence or absence today, and the award, by the way, for the Deputy Premier, is not part of the trip. There are other important aspects.
I asked what is going to happen and why this matter was not settled before the Premier did leave, Madam Speaker, and that I believe is not only in order, it is something in the public interest for the people of Manitoba to know.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, on the point of order, I will take it under advisement. I will review the context in which it was said in Hansard and report back to the House.
* (1530)
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute--Resolution
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, this government is causing a crisis in health care. This home care strike has disrupted the entire system for admitting people into personal care homes, nursing homes and hospital access.
I want to ask on behalf of two women who have contacted me--one women with MS is in her 30s and is in a nursing home against her will, and another woman in her 80s has no home care and is in her home and wishes to be in a nursing home. I want to ask on behalf of those women and many others if this Minister of Health will not respect the dignity of home care clients and the dignity of home care workers and end the strike.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, how dare honourable members opposite rise in their places every day and make reference to the dignity of the clients of our home care system when they totally support the union in withdrawing services from the very same people they claim to be speaking for, people with multiple sclerosis, for example, people who are functionally dependent on home care services. Honourable members opposite though--total withdrawal of services from them. How dare they rise in their places.
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute--Impact on Patients
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
I want to quote from a letter that we received concerning what he calls the home care fiasco. He further states that the inhumane treatment recently extended to the elderly, the sick, the disabled and certainly to the orderlies is heartless and cruel beyond belief.
Madam Speaker, what answer does the minister have for this senior who feels betrayed by this government?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Despicable though it may have seemed for the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), it is incomprehensible that the honourable member for St. James should rise to ask that question, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question: What is the minister going to say to this letter which was written to the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) which states: I have always supported the Filmon government, but now I am disappointed, embarrassed, ashamed and disgusted?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, we have been consistent since before this labour dispute began that we wanted the clients of our home care system, especially those requiring essential services, to get them even if there had to be a labour dispute. I understand that people's philosophies can be different, and the members opposite along with the union bosses have made it very clear that this is a philosophical matter, nothing to do with clients. Now they come along at this stage claiming they are speaking for the clients.
Well, is this not something new, and what have they done about it? We talked during the question of privilege about my repeated requests for a recess. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) got it wrong. The reason for my wanting a recess was so that the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) could use his considerable powers of persuasion with the union bosses to help bring about some kind of essential services and arrangement for our clients. Today they refused to do that, and today they line up and rise and ask questions on behalf of those same clients. Shame on them.
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute--Impact on Patients
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My question is for the Minister of Health. An elderly home care client from Flin Flon told me last Saturday, and I quote: These are supposed to be my golden years, but this government is intent on mining them out.
When will the minister respond positively not only to this northern home care client but to the thousands of other clients who know that privatization of home care will have many, many negative consequences for the clients and their families?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The future of most health care delivery, according to the recommendation of the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council as accepted and as we are now implementing, will be the responsibility of the regional health committees.
The honourable member rises on behalf of a home care client in Flin Flon. There is no contracting out going on in Flin Flon. There is no competition. There has been no change. So all the honourable member has to do is urge that his colleagues, his friends in the union movement, go to work and look after the clients who need them rather than bringing their complaint of the client to this Chamber. Where was he when we needed him? We needed him not to allow this strike to happen in the first place.
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute--Impact on Patients
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, a letter dated May 6 from the president of the Kildonan council of seniors, I quote: Private citizens or corporations who provide home care do so with only one objective in view, that of selling a service for profit. We emphatically believe that making a profit from ill health or disabilities of Manitoba citizens is obscene.
I ask the honourable minister, please reply to this.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The greatest obscenity of the last four weeks has been the position of honourable members in the New Democratic Party who have consistently put the interests of their union-boss friends ahead of those of the clients of the home care system.
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute--Impact on Patients
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to quote from a letter from Joyce and Bill Ginter of Morris concerning home care. They state that under no circumstances should this service provide profits for a private agency. They also state that in their opinion home care should remain a publicly funded care agency which provides dependable quality service to Manitobans.
Will the minister do the right thing and listen to the users and the public, people like Joyce and Bill Ginter, on home care?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Quite contrary to the implication in the honourable member's question, home care services will continue to be publicly funded.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Service Rates
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Health.
One of my constituents is in a wheelchair and requires three visits a day from home care workers. During the home care strike she was informed by the Minister of Health that she could pay an agency $25 for each visit, but if she found an attendant herself, an unemployed nurse, for example, she might only pay that person $8.70.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health whether that is still his policy and how he explains the $16.30 difference.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: Well, thank you, but I had not started, Madam Speaker. The honourable member has asked a question about comparative rates for service, and because there was a bit of activity, I did not catch the total drift of the question. Maybe she could repeat it for me.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, to repeat her question.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question deals with a constituent of mine who is in a wheelchair and requires three visits a day from home care workers. During the strike she was told by the Ministry of Health that she could hire an agency at $25 a visit but that if she found a worker herself, an unemployed nurse, for example, she would only be allowed to pay them $8.70.
My question for the minister is, is this still his policy and, if so, how does he account for the difference of $16.30 for the same service?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, with regard to the specifics of the honourable member's question, I would be happy to review that situation so that I can make a response that will be appropriately responsive to the question being asked. Perhaps this would not have come up at all if there had been no strike. It was never our wish that there be one. In fact, we would have thought it more appropriate for a union to have an idea of what the government was putting on the table before they decided to have a strike vote. The decision about a strike was made before the government's position was even known.
At this late date, however, it would be my fervent hope that clear heads would prevail and that the parties would work out an agreement that would be appropriate, with the first priority being the needs of the clients for whom honourable members claim to be speaking today.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1540)