House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Firstly, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Economic Development for Friday, October 4, is cancelled.
Madam Speaker: To repeat, the Standing Committee on Economic Development scheduled for Friday morning, October 4, has been cancelled.
Mr. Ernst: Bill 21, yesterday, referred to the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs for Thursday morning, October 3, is withdrawn.
Madam Speaker: Bill 21, which was previously referred to the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs for tomorrow, Thursday, October 3, has been withdrawn.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, it is withdrawn from the committee due to the unavailability of the minister, so it is not being withdrawn from the House. It is being withdrawn from the committee.
Madam Speaker: Okay, it has been withdrawn from the standing committee.
Mr. Ernst: Bills 11 and 25 passed yesterday and will be referred to the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs for tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker: Thursday, October 3, 9:30 a.m., in the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, Bills 11 and 25 to be added to the list of bills to be considered.
Mr. Ernst: Before I call the list of bills, Madam Speaker, in light of the considerable workload and number of bills we have yet to consider before the House, I wonder if there might be leave to waive private members' hour today.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Ernst: Then in that case would you call Bills 42, 52, 53, 8, 9, 10, 37, 38 and 49.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 42--The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 42 (The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les Affaires du Nord), standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few minutes to put a few comments on the record with regard to this bill which is a bill that will enable northern community councils to get more powers, powers similar to what the rural municipalities have. It clarifies the rules on funding and payment to these communities concerning services and debt.
It also makes incorporation of communities easier. In one of the communities that I represent this is something that is very important, and they have been pushing for some time. That is the community of Camperville under the leadership of Mayor Sonny Clyne, who has been wanting to see this type of legislation go forward, where Northern Affairs communities would be able to be more in line with communities under The Municipal Act.
Madam Speaker, I think whenever we look at Northern Affairs communities we have to look at the terrible record of this government on how they have handled northern communities, and certainly they have not done a very good job. I encourage members to go to some of the communities. I represent several of them, and their record is not good. You know, this is a government that spent over a million dollars on a Northern Economic Development Commission and then put the reports on the shelf with no action on any of these recommendations. It is just a terrible record.
I encourage members to go to some of these northern communities where there is a need for economic development, there is a need for better services, there is a need for better roads into these communities and, in particular, farther in the North where we see CN abandoning their lines to many communities where there are no roads, Madam Speaker. This government has not done a very good job in ensuring that there is an equity of services to all people.
Another area is in the area of the fishing community. Those are communities, again, that I represent along Lake Winnipegosis that are Northern Affairs communities. The people in these communities are suffering very badly because of this government's lack of policy and leadership when it comes to restocking lakes. We see a policy that has been put forward now to shut down the summer fishing on Lake Winnipegosis which will have a negative impact on not only the fishermen but also, again, Northern Affairs communities.
So the government is taking one step in giving the Northern Affairs communities the ability to have more control and move towards self-government in those communities, but the government has a terrible record when it comes to what they have done for economic development in the Northern Affairs communities.
I urge the government to recognize that you need good roads to get into the communities. People in 1996 should not be stranded in the spring because their roads are full of mud, nor should they be stranded because CN has been allowed by the federal government and not had very much argument from the provincial government to cut railway services to these communities.
So I urge the government to recognize that they have more responsibility not only to give the communities more power to the councils, but to ensure that there is economic development in all parts of the province and proper health care service for the people in those areas.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, this bill, unfortunately, does not do anything in terms of northern development. The principles in this bill will not make a major impact on northern communities that have been suffering from cutbacks and neglect from this government.
This government spent over a million dollars on the Northern Economic Development Commission. When the report was done, this government put it on the shelf, and there has been no action whatsoever since then in regard to implementing any of the recommendations that were put forward by the commission. In fact, copies of the report themselves have been difficult to find at any government offices. As people were going around asking for copies of the report, people have had to be referred to Winnipeg to access the report.
Like the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report, the recommendations of the Northern Economic Development Commission were never taken seriously by this government right from Day One. The legacy of this government in northern Manitoba is nothing but cutbacks, neglect.
Now that we are at a crisis again when CN is attempting to abandon northern rail lines, this government has no answers because it does not really care as to what happens in northern Manitoba. Similarly, the federal Liberals who privatized CN, abolished rail line subsidies, their support for transportation in the North has been silent since the CN announcement of rail abandonment.
Madam Speaker, anyone who has travelled on any northern railway, on any northern road, particularly Provincial Road 391, knows just how serious the situation has become. So, notwithstanding Bill 42, northern residents have no reason to believe that the conditions in the North are about to improve. The high cost of living, limited government services, limited educational services, limited medical services, limited training opportunities will continue, as will record-high unemployment. Remote northern communities have faced the brunt of government cutbacks and neglect since the time that this government has been elected.
Traditional industries such as fishing, trapping and hunting have greatly declined throughout the North. The elimination of the federal government's fishermen's freight subsidy for northern fishermen wiped out nearly one-third of the fishery in the North, and it has caused a lot of harm for those people who reside in the North. Provincial government cutbacks of the province's freight subsidy for fishermen have also hurt the North, so Bill 42 is really but a minor step forward in principle of local control, but as long as this government continues to deny northern Manitoba its fair share of funding and services, this bill will have very little real impact on the lives of northerners. So we approve the principle of this act from this side of the House, and we would agree to move it to committee.
* (1440)
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 42, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 52--The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 52, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 52, The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur l'accord de mise en oeuvre de la première nation de York Factory relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I know my colleague the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) wants to add his comments on this bill as well. I am pleased to see that the parties, York Factory First Nation and the province, have been able to come to an agreement with respect to flood compensation, and it is reflected in Bill 52. I think it is long overdue, considering the amount of time that has been involved in the negotiations to come to this agreement, and I am happy that the parties have finally arrived at an agreement at this point. I look forward to this bill moving as quickly as possible to committee and becoming law for the province of Manitoba. I will leave the opportunity for my colleague the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) to add further comments with respect to Bill 52 prior to that passing to committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, of course, we on this side are very pleased that these agreements have finally been concluded and they have been approved by the community of York Factory First Nation. I congratulate the York Factory First Nation for having shown determination and perseverance in their pursuit of this particular agreement.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
I also want to acknowledge the dedication and the same kind of determination that has been displayed by previous chiefs and councils of York Factory First Nation. This agreement has taken long to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has taken nearly 20 years, and in those 20 years, chiefs and councils, administrators, advisers have come and gone. Indeed, a lot of our First Nations chiefs and councillors and administrators from that First Nation have passed on and will not be able to see the benefits of this particular agreement, so I congratulate and I acknowledge the hard work of the York Factory First Nation.
I also want to remind the House, this Legislature, that on four occasions now I have joined others to point out to this government the conditions of the road that goes from Thompson to Nelson House. At times, as you probably know, that particular piece of road has been deemed to be unsafe by members of the RCMP, and it indeed has caused some problems, serious problems for those First Nations who rely on that road for transportation of people and also ambulances that go back and forth on a piece of road.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude my very brief comments and again congratulate the York Factory First Nation for having reached this agreement. I hope that whatever they have agreed to, the terms and conditions of the agreement will benefit not only the people who are currently living in York Factory but also the children who are going to be coming up and taking over the leadership positions, and their children will benefit from this agreement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 52. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 53--The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 53, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur l'accord de mise en oeuvre de la première nation de Nelson House relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I just want to add a few brief comments with respect to Bill 53, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement.
I have had the opportunity over my time in this Legislature to travel to many of the northern communities, along with my colleagues that represent those particular communities in the North. I have been much impressed by the efforts of the people of northern Manitoba, particularly the First Nations people, in their efforts to make a living and in their ways of life.
I have had the opportunity and privilege to witness some of their traditions and to talk with the chief and council in several of those communities. I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to go along and to participate in that process. For me, it was quite an education. I hope that other members of this House will take similar opportunities to travel to northern Manitoba and to meet with council and band chiefs because I think it is an important process to continue the dialogue.
I am happy to see that this agreement, as with Bill 52, The York Factory Northern Flood Agreement, this Nelson House First Nation Agreement also seems to show some significant progress. We are happy to see that after a number of years. I would like to reiterate the comments that were made by my colleague the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) in congratulating the chief and council and the elders of those communities for their perseverance and patience over quite a number of years in coming to an agreement with the provincial government, and I am happy to see that this bill is a result of their patience and their hard work over those years.
So, with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know my colleague the member for The Pas has some other comments he would also like to add on this bill, and we would like to see this bill move to committee as quickly as possible. Thank you.
* (1450)
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Again, just some few words on this Bill 53, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act. Again, I would like to congratulate the people of Nelson House First Nation for having concluded the agreement. I have acknowledged the hard work and the dedication of those people who were able to in the end conclude the agreement. I also want to mention those people who are not with us now, those who have passed on while this agreement was being worked on, past chiefs and councils, past administrative staff, people who have worked diligently month after month, year after year, trying to get this agreement to a conclusion.
This bill, of course, is in the interests of all Manitobans, particularly those in southern Manitoba, that these bills be ratified and approved and made into law. The agreements upon which these bills--and I refer to Bill 52 as well--were drafted have been approved for some time now. We also hope that agreements between the remaining Northern Flood communities, Norway House First Nation and Cross Lake First Nation, are finalized in the near future.
Anyone who has travelled in the North and has taken the time to listen to the stories of elders and other residents of the Northern Flood communities will understand the major impact the hydro development has had upon the lives of everyone. These developments have literally changed a whole way of life for a lot of people, particularly those who come from the Northern Flood communities.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member. Could I ask those honourable members wanting to carry on a conversation to do so in the loge? I am having difficulty hearing the honourable member at this time.
The honourable member for The Pas, to continue.
Mr. Lathlin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The lives of those people that I have just referred to will never be the same again. No amount of money or land or any other material compensation could ever replace what has been lost by these people.
Not that long ago there was a disruption of hydro power in southern Manitoba when some of the transmission towers were knocked over by strong winds. At the time that that happened I was thinking if perhaps that incident made a lot of people in the south realize how very much they depend on northern Manitoba, and so for that reason I thought that this should maybe open the eyes of a lot of people who come from the North and would start supporting programs and services that are so badly needed in northern Manitoba.
So again congratulations to the Nelson House First Nation, and I hope that nothing but good will come from this agreement and that it will benefit the whole community. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 53. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a matter of House business.
Earlier today, I referred Bill 25 to the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs for tomorrow morning. I gather it is a little problematic, and so I would like to withdraw that bill from the committee for tomorrow morning and deal with it at a later time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: It does not have to be agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then the meeting for Bill 25 on Municipal Affairs will be withdrawn from committee for tomorrow. Agreed.
Bill 8--The Chiropodists Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 8, The Chiropodists Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les chiropodistes) standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have canvassed individuals and organizations involved in this area with respect to this amendment, and from the comments of the ministers and from the feedback we have received thus far, it appears that there is no major problem with the passage of this bill into committee to allow us in the House to hear from the public with respect to their comments on the amendment to The Chiropodists Act. This is the first significant amendment, I believe, since 1932, and the amendments largely bring the act into line with that of other professional bodies in the province of Manitoba. It also allows for an expanded capacity of chiropodists to carry out some additional duties for the treatment of their patients' ailments which we agree with certainly in principle.
So, with those few comments, I can indicate that I will be the only speaker on our side of the House with respect to this act. We look forward to the public presentations in committee to be made on this act.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the same here on our side of the House with this bill, The Chiropodists Amendment Act. The minister, when he made his comments, said he had consulted with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba; therefore, we feel that if he has consulted--and I think seeing it go to committee as soon as possible. So, if there are people who are interested to make comments at committee stage, we will let it go to committee as soon as possible. Therefore, I will be the only speaker, and let us send it to committee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 8. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 9--The Public Health Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 9, The Public Health Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé publique), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is it the will of the House to have it stand? No.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Deputy Speaker, similarly to the comments that I made during the passage of the last bill to committee, I will be the only speaker for our party with respect to this particular amendment.
What the bill seeks to do is to increase significantly the penalties to be applied for violations of The Public Health Act. In principle, this is a positive step insofar as the penalties are far too low with respect to the types of violations. I do not think most Manitobans are aware generally about the significant provisions in The Public Health Act dealing with many aspects of our welfare and many aspects of our health concerns. It varies from food inspection, to livestock inspection, to ventilation, to burials, to medical and dental inspections, use of x-rays, et cetera.
The significance of public health indeed is profound in our lives. Frankly, if one is to review the history of the evolution of modern health care and the evolution of our system of health care, one would find that in fact the changes made in public health provisions are probably the most significant factor that have contributed to the longevity and to the state of welfare and health of our citizens in the past century.
There are numerous examples, from water supply, to inspection of food, inspection of mechanical and other health devices, that speak volumes about the effect and the benefit of public health to all citizens. So it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the penalties that apply to violations of this act are strictly enforced and strictly upheld.
We have heard, and I am providing these comments by way of preamble or foreshadowing for the minister when we go to committee about some of the concerns I will be raising at committee with respect to these provisions, but we have heard evidence that one of the problems with violations to The Public Health Act has been the fact that penalties that apply are so insignificant that constant violations of this act are of a nonconsequence to violators and hence are a detriment to the enforcement of the act for the protection of all of our health. It is my understanding that that is the government's rationale, and I would hope that is the government's rationale behind the increasing of the penalties under this particular act.
* (1500)
So I will be asking of the minister a little bit more elaboration and explanation of the rationale but, clearly, from our side of the House the increase in penalties is a positive step, and we will be supporting the movement of this particular bill into the committee stage.
I also would like to forewarn the minister that I will be asking him for information when we go to committee with respect to statistical data on the number of convictions and violations under the act, and I will be asking the minister for general information with respect to the enforcement of the act and where the major enforcement provisions have been. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) raised issues in the House yesterday with respect to the enforcement of The Public Health Act and concerns in that regard.
I think when this matter goes to committee we will have a very useful and hopefully helpful discussion with respect to this bill and violations of The Public Health Act. This is a very short bill but I think it can be significant.
I am just going to close my comments by indicating again and re-emphasizing the significant effect that public health enforcement and public health regulations can have on the quality of life in Manitoba. I have been somewhat concerned and somewhat critical of the government over the past few years when I have seen a lessening of some of the application of public health inspections.
I recall the fact that there was a branch of one of the research and technology labs in Manitoba that have now been privatized, unfortunately, a branch that was carrying out something that we could refer to as prophylactic protection. That is, they were going out and trying to anticipate difficulties and problems and trying to determine in advance where we might have problems.
The best example is the hamburger disease. We actually had a scientist who was actually going around to various facilities and checking the meat on the shelf to determine the extent that hamburger disease was a factor, and the level was very significant, surprising, I think, to all Manitobans. We no longer carry out this activity. We no longer have people who are doing analytical studies.
Further I am concerned because the privatization of many of our labs and research facility has meant that there is now a user-pay principle that is now applied to public health, so that water testing and many food testings carried out by municipalities and individuals now have a greater fee attached to them than they did in the past. This serves as a detriment to additional testing. This serves as a detriment to people doing more testing, and, for economic reasons, less testing has, in fact, occurred. Given the moves that the government has made with respect to privatization and the user principle in this area, we will see less testing. I think this is a negative factor in Manitoba, and this is a negative factor with respect to public health.
Again, emphasizing that, if one is to review the literature and if one is to review the evidence, there is absolutely no doubt and any researcher or anyone who is familiar with health and the study of health and epidemiology, not just in this jurisdiction but throughout the world, will tell you that the most significant benefits that have accrued to our population with respect to improving the quality of life and health have been in the areas of public health.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
So we can never go wrong, we can only serve better the cause of our fellow citizens by improving, by expanding our public health provisions. That is why that we are supporting the movement of this particular amendment to committee, and certainly on principle we have no objection to the increase of fines and to the increase of penalties on violators of public health because we owe that to our fellow citizens and fellow Manitobans. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, in regard to Bill 9, The Public Health Amendment Act, I will be the only speaker to put a few comments and say that we want to see it go to committee. We are pleased to see that the increase in the level of fines in the public health will go from $500 to $5,000. It also removes the provision that requires the permission of the Minister of Health before a prosecution is initiated. I think it is a good move, and this will make the act consistent with others in other jurisdictions. Therefore, we would like to see it in committee and listen to the people, what they have to say when it goes to committee.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 9, The Public Health Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 10--The Pharmaceutical Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 10, The Pharmaceutical Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur Les pharmacies), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I will be the final speaker for our caucus on this piece of legislation, and then we are prepared to pass it through to committee. I asked to speak on this because I wanted to reiterate some of the comments that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had made in that, while the government states that this is a technical and housekeeping bill, a very short piece of legislation, in reality it is another in a long line this session of antidemocratic bills that are designed to further the oligarchical ambitions of this government. It is the furthest from an open government that you can go.
Basically, this bill allows the minister, not the cabinet, to make changes to the formulary, to tell Manitobans what they can and cannot have covered under the eviscerated Pharmacare system that we currently have in our province. Now, people may not understand the distinction between cabinet- versus minister-making decision. Well, it seems to me, there are two major differences. One is that the cabinet is made up of more than one individual and, one would hope, would have a range of opinion there, so that there is the potential for a broader discussion of issues, whereas the minister, even with an advisory committee, is ultimately responsible only to himself. He has the ultimate authority.
The other problem with this is that with a cabinet decision there is a window, there is a degree of openness, there is an ability for the public of Manitoba to access the decisions of cabinet through the process of Orders-in-Council. Now, this bill will preclude that window of openness for the people of Manitoba by giving the minister the right to make changes to the formulary, with potentially devastating impacts to the people of Manitoba.
It is a bad principle, no matter who is in government. Ministers should very seldom have that kind of power, well, I should say, never have the kind of power that is being given to any Minister of Health in this bill. So, on principle, no matter who is in government, this bill is bad, especially in the area of health care, and especially with this government, with its record of devastating the public health care system.
We need to have more openness, not less openness, and especially with this particular Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), who has proven time and time again he is unable or unwilling, and I am being charitable to give him the unable rather than unwilling, to act in the best interests of the people of Manitoba.
* (1510)
Bill 10 gives the Minister of Health in this government unwarranted and unnecessary powers.
In particular, though, I would like to speak just briefly to the comments made by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), I believe, yes, who on September 23 spoke on this bill in the House, and he stated that it is really, in essence, not very meaningful. He said, it basically adds efficiency to the system of business of running the government. I find it passing strange that a member of the government would say that this legislation, with the unwarranted number, degree of powers given to one individual, is a small, unessential, meaningless piece of legislation.
An Honourable Member: It is called accountability.
Ms. Barrett: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says it is accountability. Well, it is the furthest thing from accountability, because the people of Manitoba do not have the ability to look at Orders-in-Council at the very least and say what is happening. Well, they know whom to hold accountable anyway, and they are holding this government accountable.
The other thing is that the member for Emerson said, it is a small piece of legislation, only two or three paragraphs long. I would just like to give the House a couple of examples of small, quote, documents--in one case, a document, in one case, not even a document--that have had an enormous impact on the English-speaking world, on the western world, on the developed world.
The first, which comes from my background, is the Gettysburg Address. The Gettysburg Address is 243 words long, written on the back of an envelope and had an incalculable impact on the Civil War in the United States and, by extension, all of the culture and society of North America in the last 130 years. That was a small piece of writing but certainly not inconsequential.
In the second example that came to my mind when the member for Emerson was speaking comes from the English tradition, and it is my understanding that the English constitution is an unwritten constitution. There is not any piece of paper anywhere in the Commonwealth, nor was there any piece of paper in the Empire preceding it, that documented what had happened. It evolved over a thousand years from the Magna Carta on through, an unwritten constitution.
Again, Madam Speaker, not even a small document, a nonexistent document, so for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) to say that because it is a small document it is meaningless, it is unimportant, it is--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Barrett: For the member for Emerson and others of his colleagues to try and trivialize this piece of legislation, because it is a short piece of legislation, is the height of hypocrisy. It is trying to make more opaque, rather than more open, the processes of government. It is eliminating and lessening the accountability because, in order for someone or a government to be accountable, the people to whom they are to be accountable have to know what is happening.
Because there is no Order-in-Council now, because the minister can by fiat dictate and bring in potentially major changes for the people of Manitoba and their health care system, this is not good government. It is not efficient government, it is not effective government, but it is very much following the lines of this government which is not interested in good government. They are not interested in responsive government. They are not interested in accountable government. They are interested in gaining more power for themselves and less accountability to the people of Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 10, The Pharmaceutical Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 37--The Ambulance Services Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 37, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), The Ambulance Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services d'ambulance), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, The Ambulance Services Amendment Act is a more substantive bill in terms of wording, and just following on the comments of the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), I just want to reiterate that short words and the bills that are only a few paragraphs are not any less significant than those that are larger. But this particular bill is a substantive and very substantial amendment to The Ambulance Services Amendment Act.
I have to indicate at the onset that we have problems with this act. In principle, we are supportive and we have raised the issue in this House on numerous occasions. We have raised in the House concerns about the use of stretcher ambulance services and the nonjurisdictional regulation and the confusion and the nonregulation of these services. So, in principle, we are in agreement with a piece of legislation that would finally clarify the role and function of these services and would provide for Manitobans and for all those involved, security in knowing that individuals are being provided with safe and appropriate transportation.
Now, having said that, Madam Speaker, I indicated that we have some problems with this bill. First off, I think that the bill ought not to be The Ambulance Services Act. It should probably be entitled something like the emergency medical response and health transportation act, but having said that, I want to go to the core of our difficulty with this bill.
This bill substantially changes the rules and regulations that apply to services of this kind. As I have indicated, we have called for some kind of clarification of the role that the province would have in regulating these types of services. However, this bill, like others before this Chamber, is again an attempt by the government to move decision making away from the Legislature, away from the public and into the hands of the minister.
For all the reasons enunciated by myself and my previous comments on Bill 10 and for all the reasons enunciated by the member for Wellington very well put just preceding this speech, we are against that kind of nondemocratic initiative. This government has moved to more of an executive style of management than any other government in provincial history. They have moved, through many bills and through moving through regulations and through moving matters from regulation into the cabinet office, into an executive style of government. The last government in this country that moved to an executive style of government was the late and very unlamented Brian Mulroney, Madam Speaker, and one of the reasons for the downfall of that very bad government was the movement of the government decision-making powers into an executive style of government. It does not matter what political stripe one is, when one moves into the isolated, cloistered cabinet room and makes only decisions based on an executive basis, ultimately, those decisions will not reflect the viewpoints of Manitobans.
Why do I say that? Because there are significant regulations in this bill that deal with the regulation of stretcher service that are not enunciated in the bill, so where are the rules and regulations? Well, the rules and regulations are going to be as decreed by the minister by Order-in-Council, by regulation. Fair enough. I wrote to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). I said, I cannot in good conscience, and our caucus cannot in good conscience, support this bill without having an opportunity to review the regulations that you are going to promulgate with respect to this bill, because frankly most of the regulation and most of the significance of this bill will be contained in regulations.
* (1520)
The minister denied me access to those regulations, and if that was not bad enough, Madam Speaker, the minister indicated there were regulations available and that the minister would not allow members of the opposition to have access to those regulations in order to determine our position with respect to this bill. How can we support a bill that purports to regulate a service when the regulations for that service are contained in regulation and we do not have access to those regulations? It is bad enough we have seen on many occasions that the regulations are not drafted prior to the legislation coming through. That is an occurrence that has happened on many occasions in this Chamber, but what is worse is that the regulations are available, and we in the opposition, we representing the public, do not have access to those regulations. So how can we have good conscience, how could we pass, how can we support a bill of this kind, one that seeks to regulate a particular service of great significance to tens of thousands of Manitobans that consist of millions of dollars worth of health care expenditures that literally deals with life and death situations and, yet, we do not have access to the regulations that are going to be enacted when this bill becomes law?
So, Madam Speaker, even though I have indicated that, in principle, we have supported some form of regulations--and we have raised questions in this House on this very issue over the past several years--how can we support a piece of legislation that does not tell us what those regulations are, and worse, how can we support a piece of legislation that has regulations already drafted and which we on the opposition side do not have access to?
So we do not know what the ramifications of this bill are. We do not know frankly what the government is going to do in this regard, because the vast majority of provisions in this act are going to be determined by regulation. This policy of the government is very consistent with the theme that has developed, a theme of secrecy, a theme of a frankly bunker mentality that has developed on that side of the House that has resulted in a very--Madam Speaker, no better example exists than the Pharmacare debacle. The Pharmacare botch-up that occurred that was raised in this House yesterday when we saw that the government, because of its poor planning, because of its nonconsultation, because of its secrecy, because of its inability to discuss the issues with Manitobans, botched the Pharmacare changes, cost an additional $19 million in taxpayer dollars when the government said it was going to save $20 million.
That is what happens when a government adopts a bunker mentality, when a government becomes so cloistered, sits in the cabinet office and only discusses amongst themselves major issues, that is what happens. That is when you make mistakes, Madam Speaker. That is why we see mistake after mistake after mistake in the health care field. It is because it is a small group of people on that side of the House that are making decisions amongst themselves without expanding to include Manitobans who, after all, have a major stake, a significant stake in legislation of this kind and regulations of this kind.
In good conscience, Madam Speaker, we in the opposition who are representing the public, even if we agreed 100 percent with the application of this bill, could not in good conscience pass this bill or approve this bill when the minister is sitting with the regulations that put flesh on this bill and that define this bill and will not even share them with the opposition. Now, if that is not an affront. I am surprised at members opposite, members opposite who have an understanding and experience in the parliamentary tradition, would not rise up and say to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) surely, surely in the interest of the parliamentary system and in the interest of good government that they would say, surely we must pass these. We ought to provide the opposition with an opportunity to see what the regulations state in this regard.
But, no, I am afraid from comments of members opposite and from the lack of comprehension that we are not going to get that, and it is a serious matter. It is a serious matter because, in my experience, governments tend to defeat themselves, and governments tend to go down under their own momentum, and that kind of mentality, that kind of secret mentality, that kind of mentality where you sit in a bunker and make decisions amongst yourselves, and pat each other on the back and say, boy, we are doing great, and do not reach out is a sure and certain recipe for defeat. That is why this government is in so much trouble. That is why the public has no confidence whatsoever in the health care initiatives, the changing initiatives, the shifting-sands initiatives of this government, Madam Speaker.
You know, I do not expect members opposite to--because they have not in the past--listen to the concerns we raise, Madam Speaker, but I ask them to consider the principle. Consider the principle of a bill. It is regulating an industry. It is regulating a service. It is regulating a major health service that has an act that purports to regulate the service and has numerous, numerous regulations that we do not know about. Consider the implications of that. Even if you do not agree with our opposition, surely you will respect the parliamentary system, surely you respect the right for Manitobans to have an opportunity to look at what we are supposed to pass. That just sets the whole stage for so much that we have seen in initiatives by this government or lack of initiatives by this government and in particular what we have seen in health care on an increasing basis.
Madam Speaker, if we had not leaked the Treasury Board document, about the 100 percent privatization of home care, the government would have tried to sneak it through. The government was going to try to sneak it through, a major, a significant change, if we had not had the opportunity to review the Treasury Board document. The members might laugh, but the Treasury Board document is the government document that was going to privatize 100 percent of home care and charge user fees. If we had not had access to that document, the government would have snuck through the changes to home care. As it is, their plans are certainly, in structure, a disaster waiting to happen, but the complete privatization of a health care system, of a home care system, without consultation of the public is undemocratic. And they were going to sneak it through.
If we had not obtained information about the closure of the hospitals, we would not have been able to save Seven Oaks and attempt to save Misericordia Hospital, because they were trying to sneak through those changes without the public knowing. Madam Speaker, again I return to the $19 million Pharmacare disaster that the government found itself in. Perhaps if the government had consulted, the government would not have been forced to, six months after the fact, bring in regulations dealing with that loophole. By any count that is a major, major mistake by a government. [interjection]
Maybe the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) will have a chance to debate this issue. I hope she takes advantage of it to talk about it, and perhaps as she is talking from her seat she can have a chance to stand up and perhaps debate and explain to me why this government and this minister has adopted an attitude of hide the information, keep it from the public. Perhaps she could explain to me why the government has refused to release the regulations. How can we in good conscience pass this bill? [interjection]
I certainly would appreciate if the member--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: --if the Minister of Education would use the occasion when I have finished debate to stand up and rise and state her comments on the record rather than shouting from her seat, Madam Speaker.
An Honourable Member: I am not shouting--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would appreciate it if the honourable Minister of Education would refrain from debating while the honourable member for Kildonan has been recognized to speak to the bill.
* (1530)
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have other concerns with respect to this bill, and it is respecting the cost that will be attributed to this. Though the Minister of Education may not care, people who are involved in health care and people who are involved in receiving this service do care about the costs that are going to be attached to this service.
Just by way of forewarning to the minister, if this matter goes to committee, we will be looking for information on not only the regulations that apply to this act but the costs that could be attached to this service so that we will know if, as is the case in other areas of health care, we are going to be seeing an increasing offloading of costs on to the sick, onto municipalities, onto other services that provide health care. We have seen the greatest shift of costs from the public health care system onto the individual, the sick individual, under this eight years of this failed government's health initiatives than any other time in provincial history.
We have seen a deliberate attempt to implement user fees on a variety of costs over and over again. Today in the House the minister attempted to suggest that the user fees now attached on the Pharmacare program are done for the purpose of equity, that the rich would pay, but of course the minister's own figures indicate two-thirds of Manitobans are going to be cut off completely from benefits. Indeed, the questions we raised and the examples we cited in Question Period about the senior earning $15,000 being forced to pay over 200 percent increase in their deductibility or the family of four on an income of $30,000 being forced to pay 167 percent increase in their deductibility and in fact having to spend over $1,000 or $1,600 in drugs prior to receiving any kind of benefit, is that illustrative of the rich in Manitoba?
So we have seen an offloading of costs, and there are concerns in this area that will see further the implementation of a user fee concept. We already have that, and we have seen that over and over again with respect to the policy as it applies to ambulance care. That, Madam Speaker, raises a very interesting issue. As the government seeks to shut down beds, downsize hospitals and move patients from facility to facility, we are having patients who are sick having to bear the cost of moving from one facility to another through no fault of their own. So, if a program is not offered in one facility and they have to receive a service in another facility, they have to pay the cost, even though it is the government that has cut out the program.
Again, another example of user fees being put on the backs of the sick and the suffering, because it is not the well that are doing that. It is not the well that are moving from hospital to hospital requiring a service; it is the sick. That is what this government has done increasingly, be it the home care equipment supplies, the home care fees that the government is contemplating doing, the removal of eye examinations, the downsizing of chiropractic care in the middle of the budgetary year--all of a sudden there are fewer visits. Over and over again, we see costs being put on the back of the sick and the suffering. I dare say we are going to see more of that through the provisions of the regulations, if we ever see them, with respect to this particular bill.
Madam Speaker, just like in Bill 49, there is a grave concern outside of Winnipeg, and I would guess that members opposite have heard concerns regarding amendments to The Ambulance Services Act, this particular bill. We are canvassing, and I hope members opposite will canvass in their constituencies, those involved to obtain their advice and their information with respect to this bill.
So, if the members opposite are not willing to share information with us and to share the regulations with us, surely they perhaps could share it with their constituents and be able to obtain some information with respect to whether or not this bill should actually be passed into law.
With those few comments with respect to this bill, I say with a great regret that we cannot support a bill where we are not provided with the information that allows us to determine whether or not the very service that this bill purports to regulate--where we are not provided with the information as to what those regulations will be. It is not even a case, as I indicated earlier, of the government not having those regulations. Indeed, it is a case of the government not wishing to share those regulations with members of the opposition, members of the public or anyone. I think that is a very, very bad precedent. I think it is a very bad decision. I think that makes for bad law and bad legislation. Is it any wonder that the confidence level of Manitobans in this government to manage health care is at an all-time low. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Bill 38--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (2)
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 38, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I can indicate at the onset that I will be the only speaker from our side of the House with respect to this bill, and that while we will be permitting this bill to go to committee today, we also have some very grave concerns and questions with respect to this particular bill.
While we do not see the same difficulty with this bill as we saw in the previous bill, that is, Bill 37, where the government is refusing to provide the public with information on the regulations that it is purporting to put into law, that it is desiring to put into law, we do have some difficulty with some aspects of this bill, Bill 38.
At the onset, Madam Speaker, one of the problems with this sort of omnibus amendments to bills, like those contained in Bill 38, is that they deal with different subject matter contained in a bill. From time to time the public and members on the opposition can agree with some of the provisions in the amendment but disagree with other provisions in the amendment, and that makes it very, very difficult to adopt a comprehensive approach to a bill and probably does not serve the public interest.
Let me deal, Madam Speaker, with the three major aspects of the bill that the government is asking us to amend. I want to indicate that we will be questioning the government extensively on the provisions of this amendment at committee, and that is one of the reasons why, while we are opposed to some aspects of this bill because of lack of information and further problems which I will deal with later, we are going to use the committee and hope that the committee stage will permit us an opportunity to obtain more information with respect to these particular amendments.
Now, if one is to look at the comments of the minister with respect to this bill on second reading, it certainly does not provide us with a lot of background or information as to the provisions of this bill. The first difficulty that we have with this bill is the provision that transfers authority to the Minister of Health to make regulations regarding physicians' fees from Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Again, this is another example--I think it is the third or fourth this session--[interjection]
You know, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) ought to get up and debate. I know she is chomping at the bit from her seat and constantly is going on, so perhaps she could enter this debate.
* (1540)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members, it is only a common courtesy and a courtesy that you, when you have the floor and are speaking, would also be demanding, and that is to permit the member who has been recognized to debate the bill uninterrupted.
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, one of the reasons on these particular amendments that I would--Perhaps if members opposite do not want to listen, that is one thing, but I think they might--
An Honourable Member: I am listening, David.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). There are significant principles involved in these amendments that I think members opposite ought to take back to cabinet and ought to consider.
Again we see another example of the government, by amendment, moving Order-in-Council decisions into the office of the minister, again another move towards executive decision making. This would allow the minister to make, by fiat, by declaration, changes to the fee structure, the medical fee structure in Manitoba, without Order-in-Council, without providing the public with information about what the minister is doing. Now is that significant? That is significant. That is a quarter of a billion dollars of expenditure. That is a quarter of a billion dollars worth of expenditure, Madam Speaker. Do not members opposite think that we in the public ought to have opportunity to have input into that decision? Not by this amendment.
This amendment would move the authority from Order-in-Council to the minister. Now, that may or may not be significant in the eyes of members opposite, but certainly, given the issues that we have raised in previous speeches about this difficulty, it is I think appropriate for us to be skeptical of the government when they do that, given the track record in so many health care decisions. I do not want to repeat what I repeated in my previous comments about some of the terrible decisions that have been made and some of the very bad health decisions and botch-ups that we have seen recently. So, Madam Speaker, it would allow the minister--I suppose the minister--he did not indicate in his comments--might argue that in the interests of expediency and arriving at agreements he ought to be authorized to make these decisions and just do it and take it to cabinet and approve it and go ahead and do it, but I do not accept that, because if one looks at the pattern, if one looks at The Pharmaceutical Act, if one looks at the previous amendments to the prescription drug program, if one looks at the precedents that have been set in The Ambulance Services Act, you see a move towards secretive decision making. If anything, the government should be opening up the decision-making process, particularly in the area of health care. The amendment that allows the minister to make the decisions without Order-in-Council, I think, is, for all the reasons that we have indicated in our previous comments, bad policy. It is bad for the parliamentary system and it is something that we have a good deal of difficulty with.
The other major amendment deals with the Minister of Health being able to determine if someone in Canada under a ministerial immigration permit can qualify as a resident of Manitoba for purposes of medicare. Now, from the minister's comments, I cannot ascertain specifically why this amendment has been brought in, although I have had experience in dealing with issues of this kind. We believe in principle that this is probably a good amendment insofar as we have seen difficulties between federal and provincial jurisdictions in this area and the ability of people who are here on immigration permits qualifying for health care coverage.
If we recognize in principle that one of the benefits and one of the rights of Canadians is access to health care, then the ability of an individual who is here on an immigration permit to have access to health care is something, and allowing the minister to have the power and the authority to declare that, I think is probably a positive step, although I do have some concerns and we will be querying the minister at committee with respect to the use of this power. But in principle we certainly are supportive of the principle that people who come to this jurisdiction and are here in Manitoba with valid credentials ought to have the right and access to the health care system. I think that this partially arises, although I do not know, and, again, this will be something that we will try and ascertain at committee, this partially arises from a much publicized case recently in Manitoba with respect to individuals. I can indicate that I have had personal dealings in matters of this kind, and it seems to me and we seem to feel in principle that this is probably a positive step, subject to clarification from the minister.
The third major aspect of this amendment is the provisions respecting per diem personal care charges and income and giving authority for the charging of fees in personal care homes. Now, I am not clear why this particular amendment is necessary, and certainly the government has had authority in the past, and it is not clear to me why the government is requiring further authority in this act to charge for services. Now the minister implied and indicated in his comments that this was routine nature and the implication was this is housekeeping. Frankly, from our experience with the government in health care in the past few years, any provision dealing with the charging of user fees is something that we want to take a very close look at, because this government has gone so far down the road with the provision of user fees and the application of user fees that Manitobans are paying millions and millions of dollars. There are actually sick Manitobans who are paying millions and millions of dollars more in user fees as a result of changes brought in by this government under the so-called health care reform.
So, Madam Speaker, we are somewhat suspicious of this particular provision, and we will be querying the minister about the need for this particular change and about the manner and fashion in which it is going to be applied because, when one deals specifically with the per diem rates of personal care homes, there is probably no better example of Conservative Party health care reform than that, the negative Conservative Party health care reform. We see Manitobans paying tens of millions of dollars more out of their pockets to be residents of personal care homes at the time when the government's contribution to personal care homes is not up, but it is down, and the government is paying less to personal care homes--
An Honourable Member: Not true, Dave.
* (1550)
Mr. Chomiak: It is true. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) ought to check the last annual report and the last Estimates. I will send them to him tomorrow if he would like. It will indicate that the government is paying less money to personal care homes now than they did three years ago, $3 million less, in fact, if memory serves me correctly. That money is being offset from--is being paid directly by the users. Now there is a debate about what the level should be, and there has always been a debate, and there has always been a fee that has been charged, but this government has literally doubled the fee. The government has literally doubled the fee, and the contribution from those in personal care homes is doubled. The government's share of the contribution has dropped, and the individual share of the contribution has gone way up, Madam Speaker.
So we are justifiably concerned about every time we see amendments brought in by this government, particularly omnibus amendments that deal with the charging of fees. We are justifiably concerned as to what this government is up to, Madam Speaker, because we have already indicated on numerous occasions that the government has slipped through--and that is compounded by the fact that the government is attempting to move decision making away from the public forum and back into the cabinet room, to the back rooms of cabinet, where they can make all these changes without alerting the public. That causes a good deal of difficulty, obviously, for Manitobans. It is not only bad from a policy standpoint, but it is a bad health care policy, because any study will show you that user fees are not appropriate.
It is ironic that the minister stands up and says time and time again, we do not charge user fees. I do not know what his definition of user fees is, but if you talk about the doubling of personal care home rates, if you talk about the destruction of the Pharmacare program, the elimination of two-thirds of Manitobans from Pharmacare benefits and, in many cases, the increase of 200 percent and 300 percent of people's deductibility, if you talk about the home care equipment supply user fees, you can talk about the deinsurancing of eye examinations, you can talk about the decline in insuring of chiropractic visits, you can talk about the soon-to-be declining benefits under lab and X-ray technologies, if you talk about the soon-to-be announced, I would presume, elimination of physical examinations for men under Pharmacare, what is that but user fees, Madam Speaker? So I think that members on this side of the House are justifiably concerned when it comes to the imposition of these kind of charges.
So, Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I am going to indicate that we are reluctantly moving this bill on to committee stage because we have a considerable number of questions that we wish to determine from the minister when this particular bill goes to public hearings at the committee stage. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 38, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi no2 modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie). Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 49--The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant Les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who has 24 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
Is there leave to permit it to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to rise and put some words on record regarding Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act.
As our Health critic and various other of my colleagues have pointed out, Bill 49 is not a good piece of legislation, it is a bad piece of legislation. In its thrust, it gives the appearance of decentralization and democracy, but it is the appearance of democracy only. It is the glitter on the outside. It is not the substance.
This bill will politicize the health care system even more than it is now politicized. There is not even a mention of the five basic cornerstones of medicare, the five basic principles underlying the Canada Health Act: universality, comprehensive coverage, portability, accessibility in public administration. This piece of legislation could easily have been drafted in New Zealand and was probably borrowed from New Zealand, or it could have been drafted in the Newt Gingrich never, never land south of the border. This bill does not reflect what Manitobans want in health care, does not reflect the direction that Canadians want to go in health care.
This bill is an attempt to camouflage the cuts that are coming, and while the province has to endure the spectacle of $250,000 worth of glossy ads extolling the virtues of our health system, and while the minister handpicks loyal Tories to chair the regional health authorities--all men, by the way, and men who undoubtedly will be handsomely rewarded on a per diem basis--the rest of us will have to watch as a cynical, tired, arrogant third-term government savages what was once a good health care system, in fact, even a great health care system, but I do not suggest that you should take my word for it.
I would now like to take a look at the concerns of the Manitoba Health Organizations. They have at least 50 concerns, but we can boil them down to at least eight, and I will go over them very briefly, Madam Speaker, before I go into some detail.
The Manitoba Health Organizations' first concern was that the decision making is too centralized. The minister garners too much power onto himself. Secondly, the concern for MHO was that there is an evolution of a health care by regulation, rather than by a public or legislated process. That is a dangerous direction to go. The third concern was that regulatory power is starting to override statutory power and especially as it applies to The Labour Relations Act. Fourthly, the bill has made virtually no reference to the nature and status of community health centres, nor is there any reference to the guiding principles for the delivery of primary health care as developed by the Health Advisory Network task force on primary health care in 1994. Fifthly, the act is very vague, or even silent, I guess, on any appeals processes. We know there will be disputes, that there will be labour relations issues, yet there are no appeal processes spelled out. The sixth concern that MHO has--
Point of Order
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like you to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), as you have asked him before in this House, to please show common courtesy, and if he has comments to make, he should make them on the record, not from his seat. He has been in this House far too long for this not to be the case.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Government Services, on the same point of order.
Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, perhaps you could rule on this, but I believe the last time that we looked you were the Speaker and the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) was the member for Wellington only. If that is correct, then I would ask the member for Wellington to stop interrupting her own members when they are trying to present ideas for us to listen to in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I really appreciate the assistance I get from both sides of the House quite regularly, but the honourable member for Wellington is indeed correct. She does have a point of order. I would ask that indeed all honourable members observe common courtesy and not interrupt the member that has been recognized to debate on the bill.
* * *
Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, the sixth concern that MHO had was Part 6 of the transitional provisions respecting employees. They suggest, and I think they are absolutely correct, that it is too adversarial. The act grants extraordinary powers to the commissioner who is not publicly accountable. Labour relations issues should be dealt with by the Manitoba Labour Board. That is the proper board to deal with labour relations issues.
Seventhly, the act adds levels of bureaucracy, so we have now, besides local boards and the Department of Health, regional boards and district health advisory councils. That seems to me to be a question of overkill. Now, some more cynical members of the House have suggested it was a job creation strategy for unemployed but loyal Tories. I do not know, Madam Speaker.
An Honourable Member: How many of them?
Mr. Jennissen: At least 10.
An Honourable Member: Did you find that many Tories up north?
Mr. Jennissen: Oh, nine.
Number 8, the concern that Manitoba Health Organizations had was the repeated vague references in the bill to the charging of fees for unnamed services, because MHO feels and I feel along with them that this will translate into more user fees, more deinsuring of health services--
* (1600)
Point of Order
Mr. Pallister: A point of order, I was having trouble hearing the comments from the member for Flin Flon because the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) was engaging in a rather loud conversation with the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) at the back of the House. I am wondering if we could restore order in the Chamber, please, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government Services indeed does have a point of order. The honourable members have been requested before, but I would also ask that the honourable members who are standing at the back of the Chamber to either have the meetings in the loge or outside the Chamber, so that we can all ensure that order and decorum is first priority in this Chamber.
* * *
Mr. Jennissen: So MHO is concerned that the charging of fees for unnamed services will translate into more user fees, more deinsuring of health services and more erosion of the basic tenets of the Canada Health Act. Core services must be spelled out and continue to be insured, continue to be protected.
Now, Madam Speaker, I listed those eight major concerns that MHO had. I would like to go into just a little bit more detail about those very valid concerns, without even touching the hundred basic concerns that our Health critic has about this bill.
First of all, decision making being too centralized. It is a concern we have because it is not an isolated incident. It is a habit this government seems to have, and we see it also in other areas, for example, with the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). Ministers are granting themselves a lot more power than we feel they should have.
Now, I find this particularly disturbing because this government talks a lot about open government, broad public consultation and responding and listening to the grassroots, and saying that on the one hand and then giving more power to ministers makes mockery of this concept. The minister makes the real decisions, but his appointed regional health boards will take all the political flak. In fact, we are asking ourselves questions here in this House as well as up north, Madam Speaker, is there any chairperson of any regional health authority right now that is not a Tory? Are any of these chairpersons skilled, or have they been trained in the complexities of delivering health care?
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
It seems to me that when the minister or his staff exclusively appoint Tories as directors of regional health authorities and hand-pick other Tories for this authority that the guiding criterion is loyalty to the party, not competence necessarily, not critical decision-making ability necessarily, nor is it necessarily an accurate reflection of the wishes and beliefs of the people of that region.
For example, today I learned that the Norman Regional Health Board has nine members on it. I suppose there could be 15, but some of my colleagues have facetiously pointed out we could not find 15 Tories up north. That is probably not true, but it is disturbing when we take a look at the composition of this board. For example, of the nine appointees three of them were Tories that ran for office and lost. So a third of the board are Tories. Now, that is an awful lot of Tories on a board when very few people vote Tory in that region, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Also, on that board we have only two people out of the nine that are of aboriginal descent. Now we know that at least 50 percent of the people living up there are aboriginal, and there is a bit of tokenism. There is no gender parity, but there is a bit of tokenism. There is one woman on the board, one out of nine, but I am almost positive that 50 percent of the population up there is female. So we do not see an accurate reflection on those boards of the population composition of the North, that is for sure.
Now we feel on this side of the House that we should be democratic, that boards should be elected, that regional boards should be elected as well as local boards. Some members opposite have said, well, local boards are usually not elected. Well, that is no excuse. Maybe we should start setting a progressive trend.
A further concern I have is the remuneration for the chairpersons and the members of these regional health authorities. I know they get a certain stipend. I do not know how much that is. It is not very much, but I do believe the per diems are extremely high, and, again, if this is the case, this would be most annoying because funds are going to another bureaucratic level that is appointed and not going to the people that really need it. So it is not just annoying, I guess, it is downright dangerous and scary to see that hand-picked Tory loyalists are getting rewarded while health care workers in the front line are taking cuts. I can already see the headlines, health care workers shafted, Tory loyalists rewarded.
Also, there appears to be considerable confusion regarding the length of service of these hand-picked boards. I think originally they were supposed to serve for one year before elected boards would be phased in. Now we do not know if that is going to be two years or three years or perhaps never. The main question remains: Why not elected boards? Is the minister afraid that elected boards would refuse to implement the draconian measures, the huge cuts that are coming down the pipeline? Do the boards exist basically to deflect the heat away from the government and from the minister? The answer to that, my honourable colleague says, is yes.
The second point that MHO made, and I would like to go into some detail here, is the concern about the evolution of health care via regulation. This would by-pass public hearings, by-pass input by stakeholders and would by-pass the legislative process. It would by-pass this Chamber. The interests of users, providers and funders of the health care system must be balanced. This requires broad consultation and support. Removing large sections from public scrutiny or from debate in this Chamber is not a healthy direction and it is certainly not a democratic direction. Democratic processes should never be supplanted by technocrats and bureaucrats.
Talking about debate in this Chamber, I wish the government would allow more of its members to at least defend the bills they are submitting. We have talked about a gag order, and we would like to know the reasons for the gag order. I am sure it is more than just time constraints. Could it be that some of the bills are so bad that the government cannot even persuade its own backbenchers to defend these bills? I presume in these bills there is much to be ashamed of, at least in this bill.
In the guise of restructure and reforming health care, we on this side of the House smell more cutbacks, more slashing, more hacking. If there are any benefits, they may well go to a handful of technocrats or loyal board appointees, whose job it is to screen the minister and his government from the public wrath that this bill will inevitably engender when it is fully implemented.
But we do expect this kind of behaviour from a minimalist government, because this government wants to run health care like a big corporation, and they find, this government finds that debate is inefficient, that democracy is too slow. Bill 49 is true to form. The minister has the real power, the boards shield the minister, the technocrats run the system, and the people's voice means nothing or very little.
This government used the Legislature, this Legislature, as an annoyance, not as part of the democratic process.
The third concern that the Manitoba Health Organizations had was regulatory power overriding statutory power. This is especially the case in connection with The Labour Relations Act. It would be fair to say that this government has not had an harmonious relationship with labour. I only have to point out the home care workers strike or the casino workers strike.
Frankly, why should any worker in this province trust this government? Ask virtually any health care worker, any educator, for that matter, anyone who has seen this government attempt to slash and cut its way to an alleged better tomorrow. I put emphasis on the word “alleged.”
There are fears that certain aspects of Bill 49 will give the Minister of Health the power to become a mini-Minister of Labour or, if not the Minister of Health, then at least his appointed commissioner, and my honourable colleague from Kildonan has already pointed this out. Regulatory power should not be allowed to override statutory power.
The fourth concern of the Manitoba Health Organizations was that although this minister and this government put a lot of emphasis and certainly put out a lot of rhetoric on community-based health systems, they do not really practise it.
This bill hardly mentions community health centres. What happened to their announcement initiative entitled Next Steps? We agree that community-based health services are less costly than institutional services. So why not strengthen that approach? Why start an initiative, then abandon it or ignore it or underfund it?
There is no overall focus in this bill. It is a scattergun approach. Of course, the real fact is that if you want community-based health care that is effective, you must fund it, you must allow it to be locally controlled to be maximally effective.
What have we instead? No local control, we have fiefdoms. The minister acts as a king; he appoints RHA chairpersons as his vassals. My honourable colleague from Elmwood was absolutely right when he stated about Bill 49, that the real purpose behind this bill is twofold, namely, that it is to create an administrative system that (a) deflects criticism away from the government, and (b) in the light of balanced budget legislation, guts the old system to replace it with a new privatized system.
Part and parcel of this will be massive cuts to health funding, increase in user fees and deinsuring of various medical services. In other words, we see the slow birth of an American health care system. So the inevitable result will be a two-tiered system, one for the poor, one for the rich, and, of course, using the minister's own guidelines, I guess, two-thirds of the province is rich, so one-third of us can expect to be hurt by this alleged new system.
Fifthly, the Manitoba Health Organizations were concerned that the act is silent in regard to appeal processes. Various health authorities will be created, amalgamated and dissolved. We know there will be disputes, that there will be consumer appeals, labour relations issues and so on with no clearly spelled out appeals mechanism in place.
* (1610)
This means that the centralizing power the minister has given himself via this act is ominous news for those individuals and organizations who will be negatively affected by Bill 49. This does not sound even remotely like open government to me. This sounds more like totalitarianism, the kind of totalitarianism the government decries when it comes from the left and it holds in reverence and sanctions when it comes from the right.
Sixthly, Manitoba Health Organizations is very concerned that Part 6 of the bill, Transitional Provisions Respecting Labour Relations and Employees, is much too controversial and too adversarial. Given this government's less than sterling record in relations to labour in this province, it is almost an act of vindictiveness to create a special commissioner. This commissioner has no public accountability, and yet this person will be given extraordinary powers. In fact, we can take an example, Part 6, Section 65(1)(b), “The commissioner shall make recommendations for each regional health authority established or continued under this Act respecting which union shall be certified as the bargaining agent for the employees in each such bargaining unit.”
Why should the commissioner who is beyond public scrutiny be given such powers? Why even have a commissioner? Since the chairpersons of the regional health authorities are well-known loyal Tories, I presume that the appointed commissioner will be a super-Tory, and this from a government that preaches restraint and cutbacks. Another bureaucrat, another level of bureaucracy and almost a guarantee that this bureaucrat or level of bureaucracy will be hostile to labour. Labour relations issues should be dealt with by the Manitoba Labour Board; they have a proven record. A commissioner would only be another appointee in the back pocket of the Minister of Health. It would be a step that would politicize health care into unknown and dangerous directions.
The seventh major concern of the Manitoba Health Organizations was that this government does not listen to the people it claims to represent. In October 1994 in forums sponsored by this government, presenter after presenter asked for less bureaucracy in the existing health system. What is Bill 49 doing? It is adding more levels of bureaucracy.
An Honourable Member: Does that make sense?
Mr. Jennissen: My honourable colleague from St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) says, does that make sense? It obviously does not make sense.
We had the Department of Health and local boards. Now we are going to get the Department of Health, local boards, regional boards, perhaps even two Winnipeg superboards and a commissioner. I could almost add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is next? A partridge in a pear tree? Only this government, using Mulroney mathematics, could conclude that if two levels of bureaucracy are too much, then four or five or six levels are not enough.
The eighth concern that the Manitoba Health Organizations had was a concern relating to the repeated references to the charging of fees for unnamed services. In fact, to quote MHO, we do not support the insidious deinsuring of health services and do not believe that such an important issue can be left entirely to regulations. At a minimum the act should include broad categories of service which will continue to be insured; for example, an MHO list of the categories to be insured: health education; health promotion and disease prevention; communicable disease control; public health services; social services; home care services; long-term care residential services; rehabilitative services; chronic care services; acute care services; palliative care services; diagnostic services; and emergency services. Unquote.
Core services must be protected and MHO rightly senses that this government through this bill is well on the way down the slippery slope of increased user fees. We seen how Pharmacare costs have escalated for the average family, similarly, we can well imagine more deinsuring of health care services taking place, more user fees.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there were eight basic concerns of Manitoba Health Organizations. They have many other concerns as we do also. Our Health critic, our respected colleague the MLA for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), has formulated a hundred questions on regional boards that need answers before we can even get serious about Bill 49. The minister and his staff would do well to look at these hundred questions, because Bill 49 is not acceptable to us as it stands now. The member for Kildonan suggested that the government withdraw this legislation and go back to the drawing board, put out a white paper and after extensive input of stakeholders actually listen to what is being recommended and draft an alternative legislation. That would be the sensible thing to do, the practical thing to do, the nonideological thing to do, but that would mean real consultation and that would mean real decentralization of power away from the minister. That would mean the end of appointees and pork-barrel politics with regard to regional board members, the end of the cuts. In short, it would mean dealing with substance, not with show. Because right now many Manitobans as well as members on this side of the House have grave reservations about Bill 49. It is a decidedly un-Canadian piece of legislation. Bill 49 would exacerbate an already explosive situation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, whenever possible, I visit the Flin Flon General Hospital and visit both health care workers and patients, and what do I see? A dedicated staff worked to the bone; patients worrying that their nurses are going to crack under the stress; nurses feeling that they cannot guarantee safe care because of the staff cuts. Morale is low, physicians are leaving, the hospital is short-staffed, especially at night. There is only one nurse on emergency, wards are being amalgamated, creating more stresses. We are looking at staffing cuts of 13 percent. Many health care workers have had their hours reduced, and this is a hospital that services a huge northern region, not just in Manitoba but also in northern Saskatchewan.
Flin Flon is a mining city. If there ever were, and let us hope there never will be, a major catastrophe in the mines, how could this hospital cope? They are already stressed to the max. And after northern hospitals faced $4.5 million in cuts, are they now to brace for even more cuts in 1998? They have already cut to the bone. What could they possibly cut next?
I see nothing in Bill 49 that would alleviate the situation for Flin Flon General Hospital. More cutbacks will mean more job losses, will mean more patients will have to be stabilized and flown to Winnipeg, and costs will escalate, but Winnipeg is cutting hospital beds too, and there are not enough life flights to meet critical, periodic demands now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would dearly wish that Bill 49 was a step in the right direction, but it is not. I would dearly wish that Bill 49 was the beginning of a solution that would erase our health care problems or at least minimize them in this province, but it is not even an attempt at a solution. I think it is part of the problem.
Scarce dollars that should go to areas of greatest need are syphoned off for new levels of bureaucracy and for rewards for Tory hacks. This bill is full of cynical politics. It has little to do with that first, pristine vision which first created medicare in Saskatchewan over 30 years ago, and I am proud to have been part of that, and the same right-wing establishment that reviled Tommy Douglas over 30 years ago because he dared to introduce medicare is now trying to recapture what they lost--medicare for profit, user fees, two-tiered health care system, one system for the rich, one for the rest.
We fought for medicare then, despite the howls of the right-wing establishment, and we will continue to fight for it now. Bill 49 does little to advance civilized health care, compassionate health care, a system that is based on needs, not a system that is based on the size of our wallets.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not condemn regionalization. As the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has pointed out when he discussed Bill 49 on September 18, regionalization has been an established feature of the delivery of health care in Europe for almost 40 years. Community-based health system, local control, local governments, is democratic, desirable and efficient, but this is not what we are getting here.
In this proposed regionalization, the minister retains complete control. As the member for Crescentwood aptly point out, we are talking about a full circle, a closed circle, a closed system. The minister provides the funding, he drafts the regulation, he hires the staff, he delivers the service, he holds the data. Neat and efficient, yes; democratic, no. It is much more of a feudal structure than a modern, democratic structure.
* (1620)
We on this side of the House have serious concerns about the antidemocratic nature of Bill 49. There is a lot of talk about grassroots democracy and the devolution of power by members opposite, but they do not really practise it, and the longer this government is in power the more arrogant it seems to become. They would never have dared to draft this legislation in their first term of office. They would not have dared, but pride goes before the fall. By-passing the people and the Legislature will cost this government, because there is a steep price to be paid for arrogance. We hope, and we are probably hoping in vain, that the government will reconsider, that the minister will reconsider and retract Bill 49. We hope, and we are probably hoping in vain, that the minister will fire his appointed directors, not because they are bad people--I do not believe any of them are--but because they are redundant, and they have not been elected, they have been appointed.
We do not need another level of costly bureaucracy, and there is no more insidious, cancerous breed of bureaucracy than appointed Tory bureaucracy. Those of us who do not believe that can visit the Saskatchewan jails where the former Tory cabinet ministers are spending some time at the taxpayers' expense.
We hope, and we are probably hoping in vain, that the minister will circulate a white paper and, after extensive public consultation, draft legislation that will create democratic regionalization of our health system. Manitobans are tired of the authoritarian, top-down approach favoured by this government. Manitobans deserve better. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Barrett: I would, too, like to speak very briefly about Bill 49, the regional health boards, and I would like to ask a few questions of the government and of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and they deal with accountability.
Now, this is a word that this government bandies about with great abandon, a word that they do not appear to understand the meaning of. As a matter of fact, instead of accountable, this legislation along with many other pieces of legislation in this session decreased the accountability to the people of Manitoba and increased the power in the hands of the cabinet and in many cases in the hands of the minister himself.
So just a few questions that I would like to put on the record, and I hope the Minister of Health is able to answer these questions in debate in the House or most certainly at the committee hearings. I think we speak for the people of Manitoba who are very concerned about the direction this government is taking and would like the answers to some of these questions.
Why are the regional boards mandated to make their rules and by-laws public when many of the minister's rules and regulations are not made public? Again it would appear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and if the regional health boards are going to be held accountable to the public that they represent, the Minister of Health, who is supposedly representing the best issues of all Manitobans, should be equally as responsible. Unfortunately, in this bill and others he is choosing not to be.
Why must the boards submit their plans to the minister, but the minister is not required to submit his plans to the board? Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how can regional health boards do the job that they are appointed to do if they do not know the full range of what the minister's plans are? If they are operating in isolation one from another, they cannot possibly do an adequate job. Again, it goes back to accountability. The minister must be at least as open as he is requiring his health boards to be.
Why are regional health boards required to hold annual meetings, but the minister is not? If we are decentralizing, if we are going to be more grassroots oriented, it is incumbent upon not only the regional health boards to be open but the minister to be open and to be held accountable annually, if not more frequently, to the people of Manitoba. Given the fact that so many of the pieces of legislation before us in this House provide a screen between the minister and the people of Manitoba, it is essential that he remain accountable to the people of Manitoba. He is becoming less and less accountable, although he is requiring his regional boards to be very accountable.
If the regional authority is going to provide to the health needs in the community and provide for assessment of those health needs in the community, why does the minister retain the power to arbitrarily eliminate the requirements or needs of that region? Again, we have the hypocrisy of Bill 49 as other bills. On the one hand, the minister says the regional health boards will have all sorts of accountability factors to hedge around their actions, but it does not really ultimately matter because the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) can do whatever he wants to do anyway. He does not have to follow what the regional health boards say. He can, with a flick of a pen, eliminate everything that the regional health board says is important, and he is the only one who is accountable to himself. This is not democracy; this is dictatorship.
If the boards must provide regional and yearly plans, why do we not see the same requirements for the minister to provide this type of information to the public? Again the same thing, if a minister is going to be accountable, it has to be open, and this minister, this bill does not provide for any openness for any accountability.
I would like to ask the government why this particular act, of all the acts in the Legislature that deal with the health of the people, is given superior authority over all other acts dealing with health in the province? I have an answer, and I imagine that the government will be willing to tell whether my answer is correct or not. I think it goes back to the fact that this act gives the minister enormous powers, enormous discretionary powers, hidden from the people of Manitoba. That is why this piece of legislation is of a higher order than any of the other health bills in this province. That is wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that is not accountable, open government.
Why does the provincial government become the final arbiter of what services can be provided? Who was ultimately responsible? Is it the boards who were supposed to develop the policy or the government who appears to be the main funder? Again, who is in charge here? It appears that the government is giving a great deal of responsibility to the regional health boards, but at the same time, the ultimate authority is still in the hands of the minister, without any accountability to the people of Manitoba or even to the regional health boards. The minister can do what the minister wants to do, and there is nothing the rest of the people of Manitoba can do about it except lump it until the next provincial election. That is not good health care. That is not going to lead to good health. Why was unprecedented power given to the minister to appoint an official administrator to take over a region? Again, to act as a surrogate to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). This is not accountability.
There are several other questions I would like to ask the government, but my time is growing short. I guess, the final one that I would suggest to the minister or anybody else on the government side, if they would choose to debate this piece of legislation, if this regional health model is to be community-based, why are all the discretionary powers and all the final decisions left in the hands of the minister? I think this is, to me, one of the ultimate and basic questions about this legislation. Health care is our responsibility. It is also our right. What this minister is doing, what this government is doing with Bill 49 and other bills like it in the Legislature this session is, it is taking that right and that responsibility unto itself. It is not giving the people of Manitoba the information that they need to make decisions about their health care system.
It would be bad enough if the government was open and honest with the people of Manitoba and says, we do not trust you, we are going to take all this power unto ourselves because we do not trust you, because we hold the purse strings, and we are the only ones that are going to make the decisions. At least we would know where we stand with this government. But this government tries to hide and obfuscate and pull a veil of secrecy over what it is actually going to do. That is why they are not debating this piece of legislation, because they know that is exactly what this government is doing.
The people of Manitoba are not stupid. The people of Manitoba are already speaking out. They are very concerned about this legislation, as we are, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
With those few words, I would close my remarks on Bill 49.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
The hour now being 4:30 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
* (1630)