ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): After the dissertation by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), I would like to move--[interjection] Would you call please, Madam Speaker, Bill 22, Bill 5, Bill 20, Bill 15, Bill 23 and then the balance of the bills as listed on the Order Paper.
Committee Change
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) for October 19, '95, for 7 p.m.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 22--The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et la Charte de Brandon), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I just have a few brief comments to make on Bill 22 before I give the opportunity to my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
This bill, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act, I believe is an important piece of legislation for the community of Brandon. There are some changes that this legislation is going to bring into being respecting the ability of the Brandon community, through its council, the opportunity to make changes to the public transit fares that they charge for public transit within the community.
I believe that under the current situation there is a requirement that the Public Utilities Board review any changes that are involved in these matters. While that, as I believe, has been a practice for some time now, there will be some changes as a result of this legislation wherein the community of Brandon will no longer have to go to the Public Utilities Board for any changes dealing with changes or anticipated changes in transit fares for their public transit system.
Since this is an issue for the community, we do not find any problem with this taking place and allowing the community of Brandon to decide for themselves that these fare changes take place. We think that the changes in the legislation are reasonable. While there may be individuals coming from the community of Brandon to comment on the legislation itself, and I am not sure if any are registered at this point in time to speak, when the legislation goes through to committee, we think that this is a reasonable request and that this legislation should be passed to allow for the community itself to make a determination on what are fair and reasonable fares for the public transit system.
With those few words, I will give my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) the opportunity to add his comments on Bill 22 as it more directly applies to his critic's responsibilities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Prior to my colleague for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), I would just like to add a couple of words to the debate.
I want to advise members of the Assembly that I have spoken to members of the Brandon City Council, who have no difficulty with this piece of legislation. They look upon it as putting Brandon on the same footing as the city of Winnipeg. As I understand it, the city of Winnipeg transit system does not have to go before the Public Utilities Board for transit fare changes, increases or decreases. It is felt that the city of Brandon should be put in the same category. So it is a matter of being made equitable, bringing about an equitable situation in the province.
Brandon has an excellent transit system. It has difficulties in paying its way, as many transit systems do. I might add that I was very proud to be part of the government that substantially increased the grants to not only the Brandon transit system, but also the city of Winnipeg transit system and indeed other transit systems in northern Manitoba. We not only assisted those systems by way of grants for purchases of new buses, but we increased the subsidy very substantially.
I recall, when I was first a member of the Legislature, I believe, at that time, the previous government, in the 1960s, had offered a subsidy to the tune of 5 percent of the revenue of the Brandon transit system. After a couple of years of the Schreyer administration, we decided that we should be more generous to help the City of Brandon in terms of keeping the fares down. Over a period of two or three years, we actually increased the subsidy 50 percent of the operating loss. That was a substantial improvement, and, as a result, the transit system did improve in the city of Brandon.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, this government has seen fit to cut back in the last few years on the level of grants to the Brandon transit system and has made it much more difficult for that city to try to maintain good reliable service at low or reasonable rates. I am afraid that if the government continues to offload, in effect, by reducing transit grants to the City of Brandon, you may find that the rates are going to have to increase more substantially than they would otherwise. People may become very upset with the city over this and may complain that, well, you should go to the Public Utilities Board.
My position has always been that if it is a publicly owned facility, that publicly owned facility surely is acting on behalf of the public in the public interest, unlike a private monopoly which indeed should be required to go before a board to justify any rate increases, such as Centra Gas, to use a local example, but, in terms of publicly owned enterprises, those publicly owned enterprises are responsible to the people anyway.
That is why I often wonder why even Manitoba Hydro, for instance, or the Telephone System should have to go before the Public Utilities Board because the point is, neither Manitoba Hydro, let us say, or the Telephone System are in the business of trying to rip off the consumers. They are not in the business of making excess profits; they are in the business of providing service to Manitobans.
Similarly, with the transit systems, they are in the business of providing a service to the citizens of their particular jurisdictions. I know the people in the Brandon transit system, and I know many of the councillors, have done their very best to offer the finest transit system possible, given the financial constraints to the people of Brandon.
As I say, I do worry, however, that there may be further cuts, especially with Bill 2 now, when Bill 2 becomes law, because the government is not likely to raise income taxes or sales taxes, and, if conditions warrant to require more revenue or to require more ability to avoid a deficit, I can see further offloading onto the municipalities as one of the consequences. I hope I am not right, but I am prepared to predict that there will be further cuts to the Brandon transit system, not to mention the Winnipeg transit system or indeed other municipal services.
By passing this legislation, we are certainly going along with the feeling of the City Council in Brandon and, hopefully, as I said, in the years ahead the city will be able to continue to manage a good quality service for the citizens of Brandon.
* (1430)
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): I just want to make a few closing comments on Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act, so that we can go on to committee with it. I know, in consultation with my colleague from Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), when the bill was presented, I had made certain inquiries with the community of Brandon and council through the member for Brandon East. As the member for Brandon East has indicated, there were no problems with this bill, and in discussions with different people from the community, they seemed to feel that it is the right way to go.
Hopefully, to echo the words of my colleague for Brandon East, this will turn into a fair and equitable position, putting the community and the council of Brandon into being able to adjust their own fares accordingly. Hopefully, it will not have to be dealt a blow later down the line with these further cuts, if there should be further cuts, to have to increase public fares, transit fares. That would be unreasonable for the citizens of Brandon.
Having just spent a few days at conferences in Brandon this last weekend, I want to compliment my colleague for Brandon East, seeing all the buses running around Brandon full. Hopefully, the transit system in Brandon will continue to operate to the best efficiency and to provide the best service that it can to the people of Brandon. So, Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to see this bill go on to committee and to third reading.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): I would like to put a few comments to Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act, so that it can proceed to committee.
This is mainly a housekeeping amendment to bring The Brandon Charter Act in line with The Municipal Act. The Municipal Act was amended in 1993 to remove the requirement that public transit fares be approved by the Public Utilities Board. A similar provision remains in The Brandon Charter Act. That provision is removed in this amendment, making the two acts compatible. Therefore, with these comments, we would like to see it go to committee, and we will be supporting the bill. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the second reading of Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I want to begin my comments by saying that I will be the last speaker from this side of the House on this piece of legislation as we will be moving this piece, with the conclusion of my comments, into the committee stage and into third reading.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this bill, Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act. It has been noted and stated by several of my colleagues, it is a very small bill. It is a very slight bill. It looks relatively innocuous. It is, however, a bill that deals with the issue of education, and we all know that education is an issue that concerns all of Manitobans.
We have just noted today that the government opposite is unprepared to deal with a very important part of the education system; that, of course, is the labour dispute at the University of Manitoba. We on this side of the House have asked the government to take a more proactive role in resolving that dispute instead of sitting back and clearly just taking one position and not looking at the issue from both sides.
As I stated, this is a small bill. It was a bill that was brought in last session. It is a bill that we on this side of the House have seen before. I believe it was called Bill 3. It was brought in by the former Minister of Education, Mr. Manness, just prior to the election. They were going to, at that time, campaign on this bill, and they did campaign on this bill during the election.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
It has three proposals. First, it allows the minister to make regulations concerning the establishment of a school advisory council; second, it allows the minister to make regulations concerning the duties of principals; and, thirdly, it authorizes the suspension of students from school by superintendents and principals, something, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is already in practice in most of Manitoba schools.
I recall quite clearly the session prior to the election when the former member for Rossmere, Mr. Schellenberg, raised this question. He questioned the provision of that particular bill which enabled individual teachers to suspend students. He questioned that, and the government at the time, the Minister of Education and the First Minister, stood up, and they attacked him very viciously in this Chamber for his position. Well, now we are finding that the member was right all along and the government, in fact, withdrew that provision from that particular piece of legislation.
It was clear to us at the time and it is still clear today, but it was clear then that the former Minister of Education did not understand the pressures that are placed on both teachers and principals in our school system. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it goes without saying that we all want here in this province safe classrooms. We all expect to send our children and we all expect our children to learn in an environment that is safe, and the government, according to Mr. Manness, believed that allowing teachers the right to suspend or expel students not only from the school and from the classroom would achieve those goals. That is all he suggests that would be required to provide a safe environment for our students and our children to learn in, simply to give the teacher that right. We, at that time, and the former member for Rossmere questioned that here in the Chamber. As it turns out, as we have stated, he was correct.
The former minister believed that everything could be solved by allowing teachers to suspend students from school. It is interesting now and we find it very interesting that this government has now withdrawn that particular section from this Bill 5. Bill 5 is unlike Bill 3. That particular proposal has been withdrawn and we feel that it is right. The former member for Rossmere was correct when he said that should not be included in this legislation.
We pointed out to the government at that time that to give individual teachers that responsibility would create a situation where there would be inconsistencies in terms of discipline not only across this province but also within individual schools. It was an issue that was raised by this side of the House. At that time, the minister was uninterested in our proposals. They campaigned on provisions that were in Bill 3 in the past election. Once the election was over they realized the error of their ways and they withdrew that particular section of that bill, and we do support the government for withdrawing that.
The bill before us allows a teacher to suspend a pupil from a classroom and not the school. In most jurisdictions this is already the case in principle and in practice. Bill 5 also authorizes the principal and the superintendent to suspend students from school. Again, this is no different from practices already well established and well provided for in our school system.
This particular piece of legislation removes from school boards one of the areas for which they are responsible to the local citizens, and we questioned the minister on a number of these issues. Does this minister intend to bring in rules that are substantially different from those already in place?
We have read the minister's speech, and we are still unclear what her intentions are. We feel that Bill 5 could create conditions for divided authority and weaker accountability. In matters of suspension, it is the minister who sets the rules, and it is the minister who will set the duties of a principal, and we have seen over the course of this government many different ministers.
* (1440)
It is the revolving door when it comes to education in this province. One minister will be appointed and take the education system in a certain direction, and then, sure enough, as we pointed out on this side that the minister was wholly inaccurate or inadequate in his or her role, then a new one is appointed and takes the education system in a completely different direction.
So now we have a minister who is taking it once again in a third direction or fourth direction actually, because it has been four ministers now since this government has been appointed.
We believe on this side of the House that this bill is a desire of this government to exert more control over individual schools and individual principals. It is brought forward to by-pass school divisions, school boards, and we see this elsewhere in the Conservative agenda.
The central authority through the creation of governing councils, through the allocation of financial responsibilities, it is a first step, we feel, and it is a step in the wrong direction, of placing vouchers or another element of direct competition between individual schools. We feel that is not part of the Manitoba tradition. Right now we are in the middle of school board elections, and we know that Manitobans have a very strong attachment to the school board system and not give the minister the power that this particular piece of legislation would give her.
We claim, and I think it is rightly so, that we can claim victory on the government withdrawal of the section allowing teachers to suspend. It was our member on this side of the House who raised that issue in Question Period. The government attacked it at the time. The government attacked that member at that time. Really, they made a serious error in doing so because the member has been proven and his position at that time has proven to be correct.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do claim certain victories on this legislation, as I have stated earlier on in my comments. We do have some deep concerns regarding this government's power grab in terms of the education system. We know that the suspension has some serious problems, especially when discipline can be applied inconsistently throughout the province, not only throughout the province, but we also find within individual schools as well.
We see that the government opposite, over the seven or eight years of its mandate, has had no consistent pattern when it comes to the administration of education in this province. One minister will take it one way, another will take it another. We see again today that the minister or the government is unprepared to act to deal with some very serious issues related to our education system.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we, of course, are very interested in hearing what the public will have to say about this particular piece of legislation. That is why we are prepared to move it through into committee stage, and we are prepared to listen to the public when it reaches that stage.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading, Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi l'administration scolaire. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Thursday, October 19, 1995, for 7 p.m.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 20--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), Bill 20, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, leave has been denied.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this amendment to The Child and Family Services Act. Although the minister may describe it as a minor amendment, I personally think it is a very interesting amendment because it touches on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It touches on the power of government and the power that governments have over individuals. I think it could be argued that it touches on the right to life, and it also touches on religious freedom and freedom of conscience. For those reasons, I find this to be a very interesting bill.
I will be the first and only speaker on this bill for our caucus, and then we are going to pass it to committee
Also at the beginning, I would like to thank the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), who arranged a briefing by several of her staff for me, and I appreciate that. I also want to thank her and her staff for giving me some background information, in effect, a briefing note about this bill. I found that to be very helpful in understanding this bill and in being prepared to speak on it today.
At the present time, The Child and Family Services Act allows for emergency medical treatment of children by way of an agency having the authority to authorize that, but this is being changed so that in future there must be a court order. In the past, the Child and Family Services Agency gave consent to usually emergency medical treatment of a child who had been apprehended without the necessity of a court order. In fact an agency in the past was given authority to consent to medical treatment on a child without a court order approving the treatment and without a court order having considered or approved an agency's guardianship of a child.
There are two situations where an agency may want to rely on Section 25. The first is where a child has been apprehended because the parents have refused necessary medical treatment. The cases where this arises or may arise usually refer to people who do not want the medical treatment by virtue of their religious convictions. In particular, that is true of Jehovah Witnesses, so we have quite a different view from that of the government and society as a whole with individuals and their religious views. I think I will touch on that later in my speech.
The second situation where an agency may want to rely on Section 25 is where a child has been apprehended for a reason other than parental refusal and where a situation arises prior to an order of guardianship being granted. In this situation, the parents may not be available to consent to treatment so, to paraphrase that, it would apply to children who are in limbo, I guess we would say, between other than being apprehended, but not having legal guardianship over children.
* (1450)
As we know, whether or not children have legal guardians raises many questions for parents. For example, I recently had a case drawn to my attention where grandparents became the legal guardians of three children and then found it very difficult to pay all their bills and feed and cloth these children, but because they were legal guardians, they did not have the same access to resources that other people might have. I know of children, because of the situation in almost identical circumstance where the children are not legal guardians, they are foster children, as a result the income for that family is much, much higher. They are being paid foster children rates, whereas in the situation where the parents--in this case grandparents--are legal guardians, they were given the room and board allowance under The Social Allowances Act. So it really does make a difference in terms of income whether people are legal guardians or whether they are foster parents.
The reason for this change is a Supreme Court of Canada decision in January of this year. It was an Ontario case, but it affects other provinces including Manitoba. In fact, I was told in the briefing that we did not have to act immediately, but of course there are advantages to acting immediately. One is that court cases are pending in Manitoba, and the province, of course, did not want these cases to go to court because they would have almost certainly lost because of the Supreme Court decision. So this minister, to her credit, is acting in a proactive way in bringing in this amendment during this session so that those cases will not proceed to court, and the staff acknowledged that Manitoba probably would have lost those cases in any case. So Manitoba is amending Section 25 of The Child and Family Services Act in order to comply with this court case which was based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The major change in this amendment is that, where parents of a child refuse to consent to necessary medical treatment, an agency must proceed to court to obtain an order authorizing such treatment. I think this is a good change, a logical change, a justifiable, a reasonable change, because I think what it does is it allows the lawyers for the agency and the lawyers for the individual to appear before a judge and the judge makes what we hope is an impartial decision, whereas in the past the agency had all the power. I think there is a good balance as a result of the amendment where the decision is made by a judge rather than an agency.
Agencies will not be required to obtain orders where a child has been apprehended for reasons other than parental refusal to consent to medical treatment. In such cases, parents will be contacted and involved in the decision to treat, or where parents cannot be located, agencies will have the authority to consent to treatment where it is recommended by a medical practitioner.
Now as I have mentioned, I have used the example of urgent medical treatment. The background paper talks about necessary medical treatment. So there are cases where, because of the urgency, there may not be a hearing in court, so what this amendment allows for is for teleconferencing so that the lawyers and the agency can talk to the judge by phone and can obtain the necessary permission. It also allows for the documentation to follow. I suppose this is a rather unusual exception because I am sure that in most cases the judges would want to see the documentation in front of them, but in this case they do not have to. They can make the decision by phone, and the necessary documentation can follow afterwards.
Bill 20 also includes recognition of the rights of mature minors. At common law, a child has the capacity to consent to or refuse medical treatment once he or she is mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of treatment. Generally, this age is well below 18 years of age.
Existing provisions in The Child and Family Services Act do not recognize the rights of a child in this respect. I suspect that we are going to have a change in Manitoba. The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has indicated to me, as a result of questions in Estimates, that she is going to revise or, perhaps, rewrite The Child and Family Services Act of Manitoba. In fact, the minister promised public hearings. Just yesterday, I was talking to the president of LINKS, an organization that the minister will be familiar with, and they are looking forward to amendments to adoption legislation in Manitoba, which is part of The Child and Family Services Act.
Mr. Kading was pleased to hear that the minister promised public hearings because they want to have some input into changes in adoption legislation. In fact, Mr. Kading suggested the process that was used in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, I am not sure which, where they actually had a task force or some sort of public body that heard submissions and then submitted a report to the minister. That is an option that this minister could consider in Manitoba.
But the reason I mentioned the act being revised or a new act being written is that I suspect in the new act that the minister may want to lower the age of children from 18 to 16, which actually would be in keeping with some other provinces in Canada, although I would question the minister's motives for this. I know that Manitoba, I believe, has the largest number of children in care of any province in Canada on a per capita basis. If the minister lowered the age from 18 to 16, that would improve the statistics and make this minister and this government look better. So the minister may have reasons for wanting to change the act in that regard.
In any case, revising The Child and Family Services Act is a major undertaking. It is a very significant piece of legislation. I think the minister indicated that it would be a process of approximately two years. We look forward to taking part in that. We look forward to the public consultation that the minister has promised. I think probably the adoption changes may well be the most significant changes of a new Child and Family Services Act.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members wanting to carry on a conversation across the way to do so in the loge so that I could hear the honourable member for Burrows.
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that intervention, very timely on your part.
As I was saying, existing provisions in The Child and Family Services Act do not recognize the rights of a child and, more importantly, the act conflicts with the provisions of The Health Care Directives Act. I think members will remember us debating The Health Care Directives Act, which was a very interesting piece of legislation. The briefing note which the minister's staff kindly provided to me points out that this act presumes that a child 16 years or older has the capacity to make health care decisions. The proposed amendments will prevent an agency from overriding the wishes of a 16-year-old without a court order. This situation would generally arise where a doctor is not prepared to proceed without parental consent.
As far as I can see, there are no needs for improvements or changes or amendments to this bill, but one minor technical amendment was suggested to me and that is that the minister may want to make an amendment, perhaps at committee stage, in Section 25(3)(1) and change the word "the" to "a." I would say that is probably a very technical amendment. It is not something that I would have found in reading this bill, but we will see if the minister--I am sure that if Legislative Counsel thinks it is important the minister will proceed with that very minor technical change. I would even second it for the honourable minister.
We may have presentations at committee stage on this bill. I was advised that probably the lawyer for the Jehovah's Witnesses will appear at committee. I think that presentation will be very interesting because, as I said at the beginning of this debate, it is possible to frame this debate in terms of the rights of individuals and the rights of society or the rights of government and the extent to which government has power over the rights of individuals.
* (1500)
We quite often hear from this Conservative government that government should be downsized, that government has too much power, get governments off the backs of people and off the backs of individuals, but in this particular case the minister is passing an amendment--perhaps she does not have any choice because of the Supreme Court decision--where in fact the government does have the power over individuals.
I expect that when we hear the lawyer's presentation he will probably be arguing about things like individual rights and individual freedom, perhaps freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. I look forward to that presentation because, you know, sometimes we hear arguments from people in our society that we may not agree with or we may think that the arguments are kind of far-fetched and that society indeed does have the right to overrule these arguments about individual liberty, individual freedom or religious freedom or even religious beliefs
But, if you look at the particular examples where Jehovah Witnesses have said they do not believe in and do not want blood transfusions, that religious view may actually have saved people's lives in the early 1980s in Canada. Because of blood transfusions being tainted by the AIDS virus and because of their practice of not wanting adults or children to have blood transfusions, that may have saved lives and may have been a very wise decision on their part.
I think that medical science has learned from that, has learned ways of performing surgery without blood transfusion, and there may have been improvements and changes which have resulted as the result of the knowledge acquired by doctors who were trying to adhere to people's religious beliefs.
In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this amendment is really in keeping with the thrust of The Child and Family Services Act, whereby everything is done and decisions are made in the best interests of the child. That is an expression that you will find, I think, in more than one place in The Child and Family Services Act.
Just yesterday on the news we saw the director of Winnipeg Child and Family Services, Mr. Keith Cooper, responding to a question that I raised in the Legislature a couple of weeks ago, on behalf of a couple of parents, and asked the minister to investigate. She asked Mr. Cooper to investigate and report back to her, and I was very pleased to see a public response to that. The decision that was made was made in the best interest of the child, and I do not think we can argue against that.
That is a principle that is in the legislation. I believe it is an underlying principle that is adhered to in this amendment because the whole reason for giving the courts the authority to make decisions in medical emergencies is to save lives, in this case, to save the lives of children.
I certainly expect, and I hope, that when the minister brings in a new act, and I look forward to debating that and to being consulted on it and to taking part or observing public meetings that the minister calls, I certainly hope that the best interest of the child will be a principle of any new Child and Family Services Act that this minister brings in.
With those few remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude, and we are going to pass this to committee. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, regarding Bill 20, we understand that this amendment changes The Child and Family Services Act to provide a medical treatment of a child against the wishes of a parent must be justified before a judge in accordance with the recent ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada, and having said that, we, in principle, support the bill and would like to see it go through.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading, Bill 20, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 15--The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On second reading of Bill 15, the motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement d'organismes de producteurs agricoles, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): As a member of a riding that is situated in rural Manitoba, I am pleased to be able to stand and talk about something as important to my constituents as agriculture. After all, the Dauphin area is predominantly an agricultural area. I think most honourable members are aware of that. Our history is absolutely intermingled with the ups and downs and the cyclical nature of agriculture, no different than most other communities our size throughout western Canada, including other constituencies and other towns within our province.
I want to also indicate that farmers and people involved in agriculture in the Dauphin area realize that being the base of the economy in our area, that a whole lot of other jobs, other activities, other ventures in our area, are based in agriculture. So as agriculture goes, so does the rest of the economy in the Dauphin area.
We notice that when agriculture suffers, when prices fall, when poor decisions are made by governments at whatever level, including federal and provincial and municipal, that the effects of those decisions and those circumstances ripple right through the whole economy in our area, and we notice the differences from the business community to schools to our hospitals, all throughout the whole economy of Dauphin and the surrounding area.
Of course, I rise knowing as well that I speak on behalf of a somewhat greater area in terms of the Parkland, which includes more areas, more constituencies, than just mine in underlining the importance of agriculture to our whole Parkland region.
So it is something that we need to consider very carefully. It is something that we need to keep in our minds as we put together legislation designed, I would hope, to help farmers.
That is where this Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act comes into play. That is the accepted name. That is the official name of Bill 15. I prefer to call it a negative check-off legislation with heavy emphasis on the term "negative." I do not like the approach that the government is taking through Bill 15. I do not think it is going to help the farmers in the Dauphin area or the Parkland area or, indeed, throughout the province of Manitoba who will eventually see the results of this sort of legislation when they deliver their grain later on this year or whatever part of the year they finally get their crops off to market.
I think what we are going to see happen in Dauphin and the Parkland and across the province are farmers coming to the elevators finding out that this government has imposed yet another tax on their ability to put together a decent living in rural Manitoba. I do not believe that this bill is good for rural Manitoba, and I do not believe it is good for farmers and other folks involved in the agricultural production in this province.
Let us consider a little bit the reasons why this bill is before us today. I think it has a lot to do with the situation that the farm community finds itself in across our province. First of all, in rural Manitoba there is a great degree of uncertainty right now. There is a great degree of trepidation amongst farmers as to their future in making a living off the land. There is a great deal of worry that they are going to be put into a position where they cannot pass on their farms to the next generation. There is a great deal of worry that, if we continue to go the way we are, they will not be able to make a living doing what they are doing, and they will not be able to live in their final years on the planet in comfort because of the poor outlook in regard to agriculture.
Now, that is not to suggest that everything is absolutely gloomy out there in agriculture. I think that there are some very positive things happening in agriculture, and I think that farmers from one end of this province to the other should be congratulated for adapting to some of the changes that have been foisted upon them.
* (1510)
It has been my experience as a person living practically all my life in rural Manitoba that farmers are some of the most adaptable, flexible people in our province. Certainly, that is because so much of what they do is out of their hands, government policies that the farm community has no control over and all too often too little input into and, of course, they have to rely on Mother Nature a lot. Time after time, we have seen examples in western Canada and particularly in Manitoba where Mother Nature has not really been all that friendly to farmers. So it is easy to understand how farmers can develop themselves into very flexible, progressive, hardworking people, and it is my hope that we take that into consideration whenever we put together legislation that will have an effect on the lives of farmers. My worry about Bill 15 is that that is simply not the case.
My first worry about Bill 15 is the lack of input into the bill from real, live, actual farmers who have some hands-on experience in the area of agricultural production. Let us consider why the farmers need protection, because I think they do. Certainly, one of the reasons that I am here representing a rural area is that I think that there is a need to protect those people in society who provide food for the rest of us to eat. I think that is something that is important. The amount of change that has taken place in the field of agriculture most recently indicates to me that there is a role for government to play in protecting the livelihood of our farm communities.
We have seen a massive amount of rural depopulation over the last couple of decades. We have seen many towns that were once vibrant and active turned into ghost communities. We have seen towns like Dauphin in which the population decreases and also the average age of people in the community rises because people have retired from the farms and are now living within larger centres. Now that may be fine for the Dauphins and the Selkirks and the Brandons of the world, but it is not okay for the Rorketons and the Gilbert Plains and some of the other smaller communities, who, at one time, were very active and very vibrant and have suffered, at least in part, because of the actions of one government or another.
One of the major changes that has occurred in the area of agriculture is with the Western Grain Transportation Act, an act that was originally put in place for the benefit of all farmers, an act that did help farmers. The Crow benefit now, though, has been something that has been taken away from farmers, and I think we need to give farmers some sort of assurance that this House is going to do what it can to stand up for the farmers and to stand up for their best interests.
Now I think the provincial Legislature is one avenue we can do that, but certainly they can do it through farm commodity groups. I think there is good reason for farmers to get together and organize. If I were a full-time farmer, I would be looking to become part of a group as well. I would feel that I would need the protection against the Liberal government, who is responsible for ripping this Crow benefit away from farm communities, and I would also suggest that if I was a farmer I would be awfully angry and I would be forming an organization to tell the provincial Agriculture minister that he did not lobby hard enough against those meanspirited Grits to stop what I think was a very backward action.
Here is another example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I was a farmer I would want to be part of an organization that would stand up clearly and say that the Canadian Wheat Board is worth protecting. I would want my organization and I would want my provincial government to stand up and say, remember what it was like before we had the Wheat Board and you guys tried to sell your grain. You were at the absolute whim of multinational corporations and you will be again if we lose the Wheat Board. I would want to organize my organization, my farm organization to say that clearly to not only the federal Minister of Agriculture but this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and all of the rural MLAs who have farmers scratching out a living in their areas.
Another example, something that has been going on for a long period of time, year after year, one Tory and one Liberal government in Ottawa after another, is rail line abandonment.
I spoke earlier about the small towns like Rorketon and Gilbert Plains that are becoming less and less a factor in rural Manitoba because of rural depopulation. One of the main reasons for that is that we have been cutting rail lines that service those communities and service farmers in those areas and the business people and all the rest.
I would want my farm organization, whichever farm organization that may be, to approach the federal Minister of Agriculture and the provincial Minister of Agriculture and, if I lived in any of the rural ridings, I would be approaching my MLA, along with whatever farm organization I wanted to, to tell them that enough is enough when it comes to rail line abandonment.
I would want my farm organization to tell the minister that that is a backward step, that we are moving the clock back. I would want my MLA, if I was a farmer and a member of a farm organization, to be looking at other options. I would want him to be looking at models that work. I would want him to look into Scandinavia, where they do have some good examples of change in the area of rail lines. I would want them to look in other parts of Europe and anywhere they can to get good ideas.
What we see in Bill 15, however, is a bill that is saying, there is only one group that you can be a member of. There is only one group that is going to speak on behalf of farmers, and that is just not good enough for farmers, and I do not think that this government should be foisting that onto the backs of farmers.
Certainly, since the changes to the WGTA and the Crow benefit, the Port of Churchill has become much, much more of a topical issue. The importance of the Port of Churchill is absolutely paramount now since the Crow rate has been taken away from farmers.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Now, I think that people should be taking the alternative of the Port of Churchill a lot more seriously. If I was a farmer, especially a farmer in Dauphin, since Dauphin is going to be quite likely hit the hardest when it comes to freight rates over the next few years, and the whole western part of Manitoba and the eastern part of Saskatchewan could gain absolutely phenomenally when it comes to the Port of Churchill--it is no secret. It is not disputed. It is not political ideology. It has nothing to do with that. It is a fact. Dauphin, Kamsack, Yorkton, Roblin, Russell, those parts of the country are, factually speaking, the furthest from the market. They were the ones which gained the most out of the Crow benefit. They are the ones which are now going to suffer the most since the Crow rate was taken away.
Now, what has this provincial government done about the Port of Churchill? What has the federal government done? I would suggest that the federal and provincial governments, be they Tory or Liberal, have done about the same in terms of the Port of Churchill, and that is not very much. I would want to belong, as a farmer, to a farm organization that would take this government right now and hold its feet to the fire and say, you said you were going to show some support to the Port of Churchill, and I would want my farm organization to do that. I would want my farm organization to do that in Winnipeg and in Ottawa, because I think we are missing out on an opportunity with the Port of Churchill, and we are missing out on an opportunity to provide some kind of a fighting chance for many farmers in western Manitoba that many of us in this House are here to represent. It is a good idea. It is something we should be looking at, and I would want my farm organization to do that on my behalf.
One of the buzz terms these days in agriculture, one of the latest, is something called "vertical integration." Now, vertical integration throws up a whole bunch of new possibilities, new risks, to farmers. There may be some opportunities there for farmers to expand. There may be some opportunities for farmers to grow, but there could be risks involved as well. We may find out that we only enhanced the problem of rural depopulation through vertical integration. We may find out that smaller communities and smaller farmers have no room within the concept of vertical integration.
* (1520)
These are things we do not quite know yet, in Canada at least. If I was a farmer right now, I would want to belong to an organization, an organization that will take an objective evaluation of what has happened in vertical integration for this short period of time that it has been around here in Canada, and I would also want my farm organization to take a good, unbiased look at what vertical integration has meant in other jurisdictions, like the United States.
What has it meant in the European economic community? Bill 15 says that as a farmer, I can get my money checked off and put into one organization who may or may not do that. I would want whatever farm organization that I would be involved in to take a good serious look at vertical integration, and that is not included in this legislation right here.
Farmers throughout Canada and throughout the history of our country have offered up food to the other folks of the country very cheaply. We have had--and I am sure that members opposite would agree with me--a very cheap food policy in this country. Farmers have done their part to help make society better. What are we doing in return? Well, we are telling them that when they haul their grain off to market, they are going to be checked off a sum of money to belong to a certain farm organization. Is that any way of treating the people who have provided this country over 128 years with the cheap food, cheap, safe, secure food, something as important as the bread and the meat on our tables? Is that any way to treat the farmers in rural Manitoba? It may be that the party opposite, the party in government right now, will treat the farmers in that manner, but it is not the way I would treat farmers, and it is not the way that New Democrats would approach the situation.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
One of the biggest factors in the farm community these days and over the last number of years is the impact of trade agreements that have been made by the federal government--Tory and Liberal--and supported wholeheartedly by this provincial government. The Conservatives in Winnipeg have been backing up the Liberals and the Tories when it comes to these free trade agreements. I do not think they have spent enough time, I do not think they have spent enough energy, and I do not think they have done enough research as to the impact that this would have on the farm community.
If I was a farmer, I would want my organization to do some sort of research into the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement on my farm operation and I would want my farm organization to do an unbiased, objective evaluation of how the effects have been over the last five or six years. I would also expect that my organization would pressure provincial governments into providing some sort of analysis of the future. What will be the future effects of NAFTA on my farm operation? The way this legislation is set out right now is, that sort of analysis, that sort of unbiased evaluation, just is not provided.
I have another concern with what is contained within Bill 15. It is my belief, it is one of my principles, that farmers should be able to have a strong voice, that farmers should be able to get together and express their opinions and put some sort of pressure on the people in government who make decisions. It is my belief that farmers should be able to organize themselves in such a way that they can express their opinions and they can put some kind of pressure on this government or the government in Ottawa or whoever else is involved in drawing up legislation that affects farm operations across this province. There is no doubt about that.
You know, I think the farmers need the protection of an organization from the very people across the way who are putting together this bill in the first place. My worry, though, is that, with the number of farm organizations that we have out there, too many farm operations and farm groups are becoming splintered. I would prefer if they talked with one voice so that the government maybe then would listen, as the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) is right now.
The problem with this legislation, though, is that they take Bill 15 and this government takes one group and puts them into a distinct advantaged position over the other groups, saying that now when you show up to take your wheat to market, you are being forced--no choice involved here--to join this certain group, with their certain attitudes, with their certain history, with their certain connections to the Conservative Party of Manitoba, as the member for Emerson would back me up on, and you are telling me, who, as a farmer, may not agree with what is going on in KAP--heaven forbid, I may not even agree with what the Conservative government is coming up with. Lord knows, I might even disagree with what the current Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says about education, but still I have no choice. If I farm, this government wants me to belong to a certain group. End of story.
That is heavy-handed. That is undemocratic. That is not what built the rural communities. That is not what built the communities in which I live. That is not the kind of approach to agriculture that built us into the breadbasket of the world in the first place. The farm community, at least the farm community that I have been a member of, has not been built on undemocratic principles, the likes of which are contained within this Bill 15 legislation.
To be specific to Dauphin, again, I want to remind members across that there was an election back in April.
An Honourable Member: How did it turn out?
Mr. Struthers: Very well. The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) asks how it turned out, and I think in Dauphin it turned out extremely well. The farmers of the Dauphin area voted in favour of the New Democratic Party, a party that put its platform forward on agriculture, and it was accepted by the people in the Dauphin area.
On the other hand, the people of Dauphin did not fall for the promise that was announced in the town of Dauphin having to do with agriculture in which $10 million was promised by this Premier (Mr. Filmon) to diversify farmers into other areas. It is one thing to talk during election and come up with money, just pick money out of the air and throw to farmers at election time, but let us consider two things.
First of all, how far did this government really think $10 million was going to go to diversify the economy of Dauphin? The second thing I want people across the way to consider is should it be any surprise right now to see the price of cattle and the price of beef falling at the same time as we are getting more farmers to diversify into beef? The Conservatives talk a lot about supply and demand and Adam Smith and all these free-market principles, then why do you not practise what you preach and admit that what you are proposing in agriculture makes a mockery of supply and demand and you are trying to ignore the very principles, the very economic principles that you run on, that you are suppose to believe in?
* (1530)
If this was the case and if I was a farmer in Dauphin, I would expect my farm organization, which I would be a member of, I would want my farm organization to speak out and point out to the Conservative government of Manitoba that their ideas in terms of election campaigning, election promises, election rhetoric, just do not make sense and just do not serve the interests of farmers.
Now the other part of this is that one of the areas that maybe concerns me most in this whole area is the amount of cutting that has gone on in terms of research and development. Now this is something that I realize the members across the way might start yelling about, is the federal government involved and they are partly right. I would want my farm organization to tell the federal Minister Ralph Goodale that he is being backwards when he cuts back on the amount of research dollars going into agriculture.
We know, I think everybody that has any connections at all with rural Manitoba--and, heck, you do not even have to have connections with rural Manitoba--to understand that research into agricultural products and their uses and ways to limit the input cost to farmers is a good thing for everybody. It does not take too much of a genius to figure out that if you cut the funding to research, if you cut the ability of different groups to research agricultural products, then that is not a good step for Manitobans. I would want my farm organization that I choose to be a member of to tell Ralph Goodale that, but let us not just write this off as a federal problem either.
The provincial government has a responsibility in the field of agriculture to provide money for research and development as well. What has been happening in the province of Manitoba? They have been cutting too. So it is not good enough for the other side of the House to simply, every time we raise a question about federal responsibility for the other side of the House, just to pass the buck on to Ralph Goodale or whoever else they want to in the federal scene. This government has to walk up to the plate and hit the ball too. This government has a role to play in research and development. This government has been cutting, and I would expect my farm organization to tell this government that research and development is important and to tell this government that they should not be cutting the money going towards research and development that helps farmers maintain a livelihood in rural Manitoba.
My basic premise and my basic objective here is to make sure that people understand that I think farmers can decide. I have the full confidence that farmers can decide, No. 1. whether they want to belong to a group or not; and No. 2. what group they do want to belong to. I think farmers agree with this, that it is important to organize, it is important to get together and speak with one voice. I do not think there is going to be a lot of argument from anybody in this House on that one. Their lot in life, their ability to live successfully in rural Manitoba would be enhanced by that, but if you think that forcing farmers into going for one particular group over another is a positive thing, then I think you are missing the boat. [interjection]
An Honourable Member: Well, you missed the train.
Mr. Struthers: Well, the member for Turtle River says that I have missed the train, but when--
An Honourable Member: Turtle Mountain.
Mr. Struthers: Oh, sorry. When the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) was waiting for the train he realized too late that he was at an airport and that is why he missed the train.
I want to get back to the undemocratic strain that runs throughout Bill 15. It is my assertion, and I believe I am correct in making this assertion, that this is an undemocratic, heavy-handed approach to organizing farmers in rural Manitoba. I am glad that the Conservative Party is getting clear on the advantages of organization and having people uniting together to work for a common cause, to work together to improve the betterment of all, but I do not like the way they are streaming farmers into one particular group or another at the expense of other groups.
Now, one of the problems with this is that up until now farmers can choose whether they want to be members of one group or another. They can choose to be not part of any group if they want, but right now farmers have the ability today to choose to become part of a whole variety of different groups, different organizations, different associations, but what are they doing? Are they running out like crazy to get in on these groups? Are they beating down the doors of the canola growers or are they beating down the doors of KAP or the National Farmers Union or any of these groups? I do not think that is true.
As a matter of fact, it is my understanding--we will just take right now the canola growers--from the literature that I have received from the canola growers, is that in Manitoba there are 12,000 canola growers. How many of those canola growers are signed up with their association? How many would it be--300, 400, 500, somewhere in there? It is a very small number, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would suggest that it is not just the canola growers that are going through that kind of a stage in their history. I would suggest that if anybody cared to look into this further I would suggest that all the groups are going through that kind of a history right now.
Membership through choice is down. My assertion will be that this government is simply trying to pick and choose which groups it wants to funnel farmers into. It is deciding which groups most accurately reflect its own agricultural policies and is then saying to farmers, these are the groups that you must belong to. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is democratic. It is something that I have become used to hearing from the other side of the House, though.
An Honourable Member: We are hearing you, Stan.
Mr. Struthers: Right on. As I said before, I have full confidence in the people that I represent in Dauphin, specifically the farmers, to come out and choose for themselves what group they belong to. In that vein, I would challenge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and some of the other members across the way to come out to rural Manitoba. I will host you in Dauphin for public hearings. You can go to Dauphin and you can go to Swan River and you can go to Gimli and you can go to Brandon and you can go to Deloraine. You can go all over the province.
I want you to go out to rural Manitoba. I want you to face the farmers in your areas. I want you to tell them they have to belong to one group or the next. What do you think the farmers would tell you? The farmers will tell you that they can make up their own minds for themselves, thank you very much, and they do not need this government to be funnelling them into any group. It does not matter what group it is. [interjection]
What I am explaining here, for the information of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), would be very much acceptable within the whole history of the trade union movement in this country, because they are allowed to vote. In this instance, in this legislation, that is not available to farmers, so the argument of unions versus farmers is just a nonstarter.
* (1540)
What I want to continue on, though, is pursuing the possibilities of public hearings in rural Manitoba. I want the minister, and I want rural MLAs from the government side, to go out and talk to farmers about what they think should be contained in this Bill 15. I want them to tell farmers that they have to belong to a certain group or another, and see what the reaction is.
My suspicion--and I will probably never be proven right or wrong on this, because I do not think this government has the will to go out into rural Manitoba and ask farmers what they really think, but I would just like the government to head out into rural Manitoba, come up to Dauphin--I will host you there--talk to the people in my area, see what they have to tell you.
They are going to tell you they can make up their own minds. I would challenge the government to hold a vote. I would love for them to hold a vote with farmers.
An Honourable Member: They will not do it, Stan.
Mr. Struthers: Any group. I want the farmers to be able to vote on whether they should belong to a group or not.
An Honourable Member: Democratic decision making.
Mr. Struthers: It is very democratic. Is this government not prepared to do the democratic right thing and come out to rural Manitoba, meet with farmers in public hearings, and then allow farmers to actually vote on something? I do not think this government has the political will to do it. I do not think they have the courage to do that.
An Honourable Member: I challenge that.
Mr. Struthers: It is a challenge, and I do not think you are going to live up to it. I think I am going to be right on this, but I will wait. I will sit back patiently, and I will wait to see if this government will indeed do the democratic right thing and come out to rural Manitoba and talk about this legislation.
What it comes down to, what this legislation really boils down to is just another Tory tax, no different than taking the property tax credit away, no different than broadening the provincial sales tax as you have done in your budgets of 1993. This is just another way to tax farmers. This is another form of Tory taxation. I think it is heavy-handed, I think it is undemocratic, and I think you should have told farmers this back in the election instead of waiting until the election was over and now coming to the House with this kind of legislation. I think that you deceived farmers, I think you continue to deceive farmers. I again challenge you to come out to rural Manitoba with the legislation and talk to farmers about it instead of being secretive.
The last point that I want to make is that I am worried about where this legislation may go next, and I am being signalled that my time is up, so I will save what I have to say for the next earliest opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Bill 23--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 23, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill deals with a few amendments to health care services insurance, and I want to say that there are many major challenges facing us in the health care field. We are facing a deterioration in our health care system and there are many issues that should be addressed by this government, issues such as the closure of emergency wards, issues of cutbacks of beds in rural Manitoba and various cutbacks that we are seeing by this heartless government when it comes to dealing with the health of people.
In addition to that, a lack of recognition on the part of this government that there is a need for health care services throughout rural Manitoba and that we have many areas where people do not have adequate care, and in fact have not been addressed by this government. I think about some of the communities that I represent where we have called on this government to address things such as nursing stations, but I realize, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that these issues are not addressed in this bill.
This bill contains three amendments which actually are minor amendments in comparison to the major issues that our health-care system is facing. These amendments deal with the health services insurance, and the first amendment gives more power to the inquiry committee established to investigate practices of physicians not falling in line with what is deemed to be average or norm.
The second provides broader liability protection for individuals and committees involved in investigating doctors. It is greater protection than the previous legislation provides.
If an investigating agency looking into a doctor makes a mistake on their investigation, then the agency is protected from lawsuit, and we have no problem with those parts of the legislation. Clearly, there should be protection for the committee that is doing inquiries or investigation on behalf of the people in Manitoba when it comes to the practices of doctors.
I know that although this gives protection to people who are doing investigating, there are also people who serve on hospital boards, representatives from municipalities who are often concerned about how they would be protected if they took certain actions. Although this protection does not extend to them, it does protect those people who are doing the investigation of various doctors if there should be a lawsuit involved.
Finally, the act allows the government by Order-in-Council to allow nursing homes to deal with funds kept in interest-bearing accounts for patients in those nursing homes, giving them the authority to use the interest for the benefit of the residents.
This area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a bit controversial. We are curious as to why the government would feel that they would have to pass this kind of legislation when the present act allows personal care homes to actually hold funds in trust for residents and allows government to make regulations on how that trust money should be dealt with.
So there are the regulations now, and it seems strange that the government should want to make these changes right now. We are waiting for information from the government as to what the regulations would be and what the impact of these changes will be. Certainly, as it is right now, when there is money held in trust, the personal care home has the ability to hold that money and use it for the betterment of the residents of the personal care home. That is legitimate, but when we see the expansion of this regulation, we wonder what the government means when they are bringing in comments such as "generally."
It could mean anything from the interest of the account being used to improve the facility of the residents. It could be used for recreational activities that would benefit the residents, and certainly that would be good, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but is it possible that this could also mean that the money could also be used, in the case of a private nursing home, to pay salaries? It could be used to pay the expenses of the running of the home, and that takes away the real intent of what the trust was set up for.
* (1550)
So there is some concern as to why this legislation is being brought in and why it has been decided that these changes should be dealt with under regulation. We feel that there should be more specifics brought forward so that we can have a debate on the real intent of this legislation, and there should be an open discussion on what the government is actually proposing to be doing.
Certainly, we recognize that there are many of these trust accounts. These trust accounts do, in many cases, bring in a lot of revenue, but the trust accounts are set up for a particular purpose. We must ensure that they are being dealt with properly and that it is not an attempt by this government to bring in something that will end up being used in private nursing homes and other nursing homes that will not be in the best interest of the people. So we would hope that there will be hearings and we will have the opportunity to hear from people who have concerns, and hear the views of the people who are affected by this legislation and, from that, take the necessary recommendations from people who will be at the hearings and from the general public.
But certainly the government, as I say, should be spelling out more clearly what the intention is of this legislation. We look forward to hearing from them. But, as I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at a time when we are facing many, many challenges in the health care system, it is unfortunate that the most important issue that we can see coming from this government is ways to deal with trust accounts. Certainly we agree with the section on giving some protection to people who are doing investigating of medical practitioners who may have fallen outside the guidelines of how they should have been practising, but, as I say, there are many other serious challenges facing us in this health care system.
People in my constituency are certainly affected by changes that have been brought about by this government, particularly with the cutbacks and lack of introduction of new services. I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people in my constituency are quite disappointed with the change to the regional health districts, that the government did not recognize that in the area of Swan River as a regional health district when they were able to make the necessary adjustment to boundaries to create another health care district in southern Manitoba but not recognize the natural geographic boundaries of the Swan River area. That is a concern.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
I am sure that this is going to lead to problems when the government realizes that just drawing boundaries without considering the natural geographic boundaries of the area--they will recognize in a few years that this is not a good decision that they made.
With those few comments, Madam Speaker, I will adjourn my debate and look forward to hearing what people have to say of this at the committees.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is actually with pleasure that I am provided the opportunity to speak on this particular bill, Bill 23, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act.
In fact, I have a bill entitled the same, but of course a bit different of a number. It is Bill 201. They are, in essence, the two extremes. The one that we are dealing with today does make reference to some changes that will have an impact no doubt to Bill 201, where you would see that there is going to be a very significant change. I feel that it is important to be able to express my thoughts, the party's position on this bill. Equally do I feel it is important, in particular for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), to be able to speak to Bill 201.
I trust, Madam Speaker, having realized that there are very few days left to go, that the member for Sturgeon Creek will in fact comment on Bill 201.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, this bill does provide for protection from liability for the members of different boards who conduct themselves, in essence, in good faith. The three boards or committees, if you like, are the Medical Review Committee, the Manitoba Health Board and the Formal Inquiry Committee.
The legislation is also there to assist the investigating of irregular billing practices. Both of these amendments, I believe, are positive and a move in the right direction. The whole question of health care reform is something in which there has been a significant amount of debate in the Chamber over the last little while, and in particular we have seen, with the emergency services and bed closures that it is once again becoming the issue to be debated inside this Chamber in this relatively short session.
One of the aspects of this bill is to look at the whole way in which billing practices are in fact conducted. It would be nice, and I have made the suggestion in the past, that we have to look even broader than that, that there are other ways in which we can be paying health care workers, in particular our doctors and more importantly through the expansion of a nurse practitioner to the extent of actually having a certifying body.
There is the whole concept of salaried positions, both for doctors and this new classification of a nurse practitioner, that I believe would go a long way in dealing with what is being hoped to be achieved in this particular bill, and that is trying to insist on more accountability of those scarce public dollars that are going towards health care.
To that end, Madam Speaker, I would hope and trust that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has taken questions in particular that we in the Liberal Party have put forward to the government regarding the expansion or certification, if you like, of the nurse practitioner, because ultimately we believe that that initiative in itself will do a lot more than this particular piece of legislation.
We owe it in terms of investigating irregular billing practices, but it is important to note where there might be reasons to believe that something has gone wrong with the way in which a particular clinic or a doctor might be, in some cases, and we are looking more at the exception obviously than anything else, or there is a mistake that is made in good faith or by accident, I should say, not in good faith. So the principle of this particular bill is something which we support and we do want to be able to see go to committee.
When we talk about freeing up, in particular the boards and the committees that the government is proposing to do in terms of liability, again, we have to rely very heavily on these boards and committees in performing. The best way we can ensure that they are performing to their best is to give them the assurances that the legislation is there to protect their best interests on the condition, of course, that they are conducting themselves in a way that is responsible and in good faith.
There are numerous committees that are out there. In fact, we just had a committee that was fairly recently announced in terms of its activities.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will have 34 minutes remaining.
* (1600)
The hour being 4 p.m., as previously agreed, time for private members' hour.