HEALTH

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Health. Would the minister’s staff please enter the Chamber at this time.

The item before the committee is 1.(b)(1) and the motion of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak in support of our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), in fact, both of our ministers of Health, our government which has been working hard to bring in health reform. It is absolutely necessary to bring in health care reform because that is the only way we are going to maintain a good health care system for us, for our children, for our grandchildren and for future generations.

Our Minister of Health is working hard to bring this about, but it is human nature to resist change, and that probably, Mr. Chairman, is the biggest problem that we have--fear of change.

From the other side also we see fear of a service being delivered by other than government. I think the other side forgets that government is here to provide a service. We are not here to provide jobs. We are here to provide a service. Probably this is the most important point that can be made, and it is one that is relevant to all departments. It does not matter whether we are talking about Health or Education, Family Services, Highways, Justice, you name it, government is here to provide a service.

Now all governments at all levels in all provinces are struggling to cut costs to maintain services. We all need to live within our means, to bring down interest payments. We have all heard criticisms over the past decade about government, and it does not matter whether we are talking federal, provincial, municipal governments. We have all heard that all government employees are fat cats, overpaid. We have got too much bureaucracy. Well, you know, there is a grain of truth. One of the main things that all of us have heard, if we are all honest enough to admit it, is that government does not provide enough service.

Now one of the ways to keep a handle on expenditures is to contract out, to introduce some form of competition, in other words, to go to the private sector. I take great offence to those particularly on the other side that going to the private section, or going to a private company, is somehow or other going to be providing a lesser kind of a service, a poor quality of service. Are members on the other side saying that health care workers that work for a private nursing home are somehow or other providing a lesser quality of service? Are members on the other side saying that carpenters who do not work for government are somehow providing a shoddy kind of service? Are members on the other side saying that engineers who work for a private company are providing a lesser service? Museum workers, ministers who do not work for government, are they because they are in a private sector somehow providing a lesser quality? A poorer quality?

I take great offence that anybody who is working for the private sector is somehow or other providing a lesser kind of service. If you are a person of integrity, you will give good value regardless of who you work for. A person of integrity will give--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. If the members who want to carry on this conversation across the way want to do so, I would appreciate they do so in the hall. The honourable member from St. Vital (Mrs. Render) has the floor at this time.

An Honourable Member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We will maintain decorum in the Chamber today, or we will not be carrying on for too long.

Mrs. Render: Let me just repeat again. If you are a person of integrity, you will give good value regardless of whom you work for, whether you work for the private sector, whether you work for government.

Now let me just give you a wee bit of history on home care here in Manitoba. It was started not by the government in the mid-’70s; it was started by a private organization in the late 1960s. I know, because I was part of that private organization. I worked for the Victorian Order of Nurses, and I helped along with one other individual establish what was then known as the Home Help Service. That was the service that provided the non-nursing service to patients.

Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition said today that privatizing home care would mean a revolving kind of service. He is absolutely wrong. The VON, the service that I worked for, provided consistent good care. And yes, there were times when a homemaker did not provide good service, but that homemaker was released. It is like any profession. There is always the good and the not-so-good, the average and the not-so-good. But we in the private sector were able to do something about it.

* (1540)

One of the things that we did in the private sector was we tried very hard to match the patient with the homemaker. Before the patient was discharged from hospital, I went out to the hospital, met the patient, tried to get a sense of that person’s personality so I could try to match the homemaker to the needs of that patient. I met with the home care worker, the home care co-ordinator at the hospital. There was only one individual at that particular time. I talked to the doctor, I talked to the family, to see what kind of care was needed.

We worked very hard to match the needs of the patient to the homemakers that we had available. The VON provided a very flexible service and that is the kind of thing that can be provided in the private sector. We were able to be flexible, we were able to adapt quickly to the needs. Regretfully, since then our home health has been sort of swallowed up by government, I guess you could say, and sometimes, regretfully I have to say, government moves very slowly, and we cannot move as quickly as we want to. We cannot be quite as adaptable or as flexible as we want to.

I understand that some of the services that we are providing now, some of the after-hour services, so to speak, some of those seven-day-a-week services, some of the home intravenous services are already being provided by a private company, not by a government worker. We have already proved that a private company does work, and I find it very hypocritical that members opposite have forgotten about all of the complaints that they brought to this legislature in 1993, all of the literature that they put out across the city during the 1993 by-election, all of the complaints about home care that they said.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we have worked hard to try to deal with those complaints. We have solved some of the problems, but we have not been able to solve all of them. One of the ways that we have been able to solve the problem of flexibilty, of adapting quickly to the needs of the client by being able to provide more service than what we are able to give within government itself, is by contracting out, is by going out to a private company.

So, as I say, I find it very hypocritical that members opposite a few years ago were complaining about the home care service and now all of a sudden it is absolutely perfect. Now, I just think it is rather coincidental in today’s Free Press, Monday, April 22, there is letter to the editor and it is called: Private care has quality. This is written by a nurse, and I want to quote: “I have been wanting to write this letter for sometime and hesitated because I don’t want mudslinging between government home care and private agencies.

“I’m a registered nurse working for two private agencies, Olsten Kimberly Quality Care and Drake Medox. I take offence at the premise that people will die if not looked after by government home-care services. I empathize with compromised clients and realize how difficult it will be for them and their families to change workers.

“I provide quality care,” says this writer, “to our clients and had to be experienced to be hired by either company. I graduated from the same nursing school, have the same code of ethics and have to have my nursing licence fee paid yearly.

“As a pediatric nurse, I work with many home-care clients and feel equally qualified, although I do not have the privilege of having mostly daytime hours.

“All home-care workers, government or private, are initially new to clients. The only reason government home care has case consistency is that private companies provide relief hours when government home-care workers cannot fill the hours needed by a client. I know that when Olsten Quality Care has a new client, they try very hard to maintain consistency of care by having the same nurses attend the same case.

“I am proud to work for Olsten Kimberly Quality Care as a pediatric nurse and equally proud to work for Drake Medox, providing relief for staff in hospitals and nursing services.”

This is signed, Mr. Chairman, by Irene Shead.

Again, I just want to reiterate that a privately run home care can be just as good, because it depends upon the individual, it depends upon the standards that we as government are setting. And we do have standards; we will be monitoring them. Again, the bottom line is that we must continue to provide the service. We are here to ensure that service will continue into the future. Thank you.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I, too, would like to rise to speak to the motion and more specifically to the support of our Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and our government for the hard work and the commitment and the service that this government has given to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Chairperson, I think we only need go back a year ago, I guess it was April 25, to the last election, where we received support from Manitobans for us to continue to govern.

Mr. Chairperson, we have governed and, I believe, governed well since 1988 under very difficult times, times when governments have not had the revenues coming in that they had in the ’60s and the ’70s, times when people of Manitoba and all Canadians have been saying it is time that government started to live within their means and it is time that governments started to get a handle on where the money was going. We all know that in our own personal lives we have to budget, we have to balance that budget, and we cannot continue to overspend. Otherwise we lose everything we have.

Mr. Chairperson, governments are no different. We have to learn to spend the money that we generate and that we bring in in a very wise and reasonable way. Our government, I think, has demonstrated our ability to cope and to make the right decisions when we placed the highest priority on Health, on Education and on Family Services continually since 1988. That is where the majority of the money is spent, and that is where we have placed the emphasis and the priority.

Every other department within government has had to sacrifice and take less, because we have made a commitment as a government to health, to education and to family services. It is clear that no other province across the country spends as much of its budget on health care. Some 33.8 percent of our budget this year is allocated to health care. Mr. Chairperson, we know that within that health care budget a considerable amount of money and an increasing amount of money has gone to home care. The budget for home care has over doubled since 1988. There is more money in the budget this year for home care. I think it is some $8 million more for home care.

* (1550)

I do not know how much is enough, and I am not sure. We have said many times before as a government more money does not necessarily mean better care, but we are looking to try to find the best way possible to serve the needs of Manitobans as our population ages. That is a reality, Mr. Chairperson. More people are going to need home care into the future, not less. We see also as people are moving out of hospitals and into the community, and the move towards decentralization, we are in fact having to provide more care out of the institutions.

Mr. Chairperson, how do we possibly come to grips with that reality and try to spend and manage our dollars wisely? I do not believe that any one group in society should have a monopoly. We have the MGEU and the union for home care workers that has, in essence--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am having great difficulty--if the members want to carry on the conversation, I would appreciate that they do so in the loge. The honourable minister, to continue.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you. As I said, we have had the MGEU that has, in essence, had a monopoly over the work in the home care field for a long period of time now, and I know that there are certain components of home care that have been contracted out, some without a competitive process and, I think, more recently, some with a competitive process. The competition is a healthy thing. I believe that anyone that works in the health care field and the home care field is committed to the job that they do, and I do not think it matters whom they work for.

I have a background in the health care field, and it did not matter which hospital I worked in or where I worked. My first and foremost commitment and responsibility was to the patient that I looked after, and I tried to do that to the best of my ability. I believe that there are those that work for government in the home care field that are committed and dedicated; I believe there are those that work for the private companies that are committed and dedicated. I do not think it matters whom you work for; I think it matters how committed you are to the people that you serve. I believe it can happen with any person working for any agency. If the commitment and the dedication are there, they will ensure that their patients get good service.

I argue that there is absolutely no reason, or there should be no reason, to fear the competitive process in health care. We are going to need more and more people in the community delivering home care into the future, and if we can have more organizations and more people involved in that profession, we are going to be able to serve the people that need that service in a better fashion.

I have to think that the ideologically driven opposition, New Democratic opposition, in this House is putting the unions and their union bosses far ahead of the people that need the service. I am extremely disappointed to hear them ranting and orchestrating the kind of unrest that we are seeing, and many of those people that are working in home care presently that are MGEU members do not want to be out on strike. They want to be there looking after their patients, and I think it is the ideology and the rumor-mongering that is spread by union bosses and members of the New Democratic Party that does no service to those that are working there and committed to their patients and those that need that kind of care and that kind of support in our community.

We are looking at pilot projects that will provide some competitive process in the marketplace, and I would encourage members of the opposition, rather than standing up in this House and in the media and in the community day after day trying to whip up the troops and fearmonger and spread information that is incorrect out there, to sit down with their friends, the union leadership, and help them develop a bid to compete for the jobs that will be available. I think that might be a very positive process, and, quite frankly. if they could work very co-operatively with their union bosses and indicate to them that there is the opportunity and have them come forward and put in a bid, they might even surprise themselves and win some of the work in one of the quadrants of the city of Winnipeg. I think that would be a very positive option.

I do not want to stand and criticize. I just think they have to get beyond, in the opposition, the New Democratic opposition, their hidebound ideology and sit down and look at how they can work with the union bosses to the benefit of the patients that need the care and put in a proposal that might see them win some of the work in the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Chairperson, my understanding is throughout rural Manitoba that things are going fairly well. In the city of Winnipeg things are a little different. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) may have the opportunity to stand up and report on where the strike is at and what kind of service is being provided, but I think it is important for the opposition to look at this in a constructive way to encourage their friends, the union bosses, to sit down and spend their time productively developing proposals to meet the needs of those people that need it.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairperson, I am happy to have this opportunity to put a few comments on record. I do wish to indicate that there are many, many concerns about the issue that has been raised in this House, and I want to indicate too that we continue to work hard to ensure that the people of Manitoba who require these essential services are in fact receiving them. However, I note with a great amount of concern that there are home care attendants who are in fact on strike who are using intimidation tactics to persuade others not to work.

Indeed, we had a letter from a very frightened woman, and the member from Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) might think nothing of intimidation tactics by union members, but I for one am concerned about them. This particular woman had been assigned to a client, a client who was still at home, wanting to receive care at home, and had gone out to that home in a rural area. This is a woman dedicated to providing health care to these workers. Two home care attendants who were on strike follow this worker from the client’s home out in the country, an isolated area, to a location near her home. This country road was blocked by water, and a series of vehicles were turning around. This woman who was attempting to continue providing services, her car was stopped. These two strikers came up to her car, in this isolated area, came over to her vehicle and started to threaten her, started to threaten her with fines of a thousand dollars from the union, that the union would fine her for helping people.

Here is a woman on an isolated country road being met by two thugs who are frightening an elderly woman. Her name, they said her name would be put on a black list, and she would never again be accepted by her co-workers when the strike was over. They threatened to put her name and a picture over a local newspaper. Then, when some traffic came by, these two brave thugs were intimidated themselves and thought they should move away, and so this woman had an opportunity then to leave. She turned her vehicle around and proceeded to drive, and, again, she was stopped by these two strikers, these two people who themselves had no respect for the vulnerable of Manitoba. But what is worse is that they attempted to dissuade her from providing these services. And so she was met by these two health care attendants--what an ironic title “health care attendants”--intimidating, intimidating people wanting to work, and they swung into her lane of traffic and followed her.

Now, the member from Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) might not be frightened about driving down a country road and being stopped by two male individuals. And where is the member from Osborne (Ms. McGifford) who always talks about women’s rights? And we have two thugs, two people on strike, stopping these individuals from working. This is a woman, then, who immediately went to her supervisor and reported the incident; she would still like to work but cannot because of these threats.

Where does the NDP stand? Where does the NDP stand on supporting workers who want to deal with these vulnerable people, who want to give this help. I will tell you, the NDP does not care because of the comic antics that the member from Dauphin is engaging in right at this moment. He does not care. He does not care about the rural women who, in fact, say, I believe that we have a responsibility to look after the vulnerable in our society. He does not care. The member from Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is spouting off from his seat. He will have an opportunity to stand up, and he will be able to tell the people of Manitoba where, in fact, he stands. Let the people of Manitoba know where he stands.

* (1600)

Point of Order

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I believe, yes, on a point of order, the member speaking just relinquished the floor and asked me to respond to a question which I would be glad to do, so I believe if you refer to his words you will find that he has relinquished the floor.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue.

Mr. Toews: I indicated, for the record, and the record will indicate that I said, when he has the opportunity to speak, he can tell where he stands, on the side of the union thugs or on the side of people who care about Manitobans, who want to deliver that service. One could say, perhaps this is just an isolated event. Well, I can indicate, Mr. Chair, that this is not an isolated event, that this is an attitude that comes down from the union. It is an attitude that comes down from the union and tells us exactly where the union stands, where the union bosses stand on this particular issue.

Over the weekend, this is what the union said to the government negotiators in respect of essential services. As you know, we have been attempting to deal on a voluntary basis with an essential services agreement. In every single situation the governments and the unions, in fact, have been able to agree on an essential services agreement. In this particular case, when we are dealing with the most vulnerable, the union says no. Not only does the union say no, Mr.Chairperson, you know what they say? They say it is our position--and these are the union’s words--that the fact that functionally dependent clients are in jeopardy. They admit they are in jeopardy without an essential services agreement, and they say it remains the government’s responsibility.

The home care workers who want to work are being intimidated by the union bosses and being encouraged by this kind of language from the union, threatened with fines, threatened with blackmail, and I do not expect any understanding on this part from members opposite, because they do support that kind of activity; because not once have they stood up and said we support the right of people to work if people choose to work in this province.

There is a right to work in this province, and we believe in it. We believe that public servants who choose to help others should be given that opportunity. We will not stand with the NDP and say, let us intimidate women on isolated country roads by sending health care attendants--the irony of that, to send other health care attendants to intimidate women, middle-aged women who are trying to make a living and taking care of the vulnerable people, that these people now are saying do not do it, if you do it you are going to be fined by the union, you are going to be blacklisted.

Well, there is no such law in Manitoba that would prevent workers from exercising their public responsibility, and this government will continue to support workers against union bosses who care nothing for workers, who care nothing for the people of Manitoba, and who care only for themselves. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I would like to put a few comments on the record with regard to this particular issue and this particular topic, Mr. Chairman . I would have to agree with my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), who has just put on the record some of the realities and some of the incidents that are occurring across this province as a result of union bosses intimidating innocent people who are trying to do their job.

Since the Minister of Labour stood up on his feet, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has continually laughed and snickered at the comments that the Minister of Labour has put on the record. I think this is despicable because I have to tell you that in talking to people who are providing services, home care services, to the most vulnerable in our society, the people who are elderly, who cannot get out of bed in the morning without any assistance--we have people out there, home care workers, who earnestly want to deliver the service.

I have spoken to several of them, Mr. Chairman, who have indicated to me very clearly they want to have nothing to do with the strike, nothing whatsoever. All they want is to do their job.

I go back to a time when the nurses were on strike a couple of years ago, other than a small community where the nursing staff in the hospital are part of the community. At that time the nursing staff at that hospital decided that they would not follow suit with the union and did not go out on strike when other nurses did. As a matter of fact, they continued to provide the services to the people that were within that community and in that hospital.

It was no secret that during that period of time these nurses, as well, underwent some tremendous stress in trying to provide the services that they were trained for. It is no different today as we enter this particular strike with the home care workers.

In rural Manitoba, the people who are providing the services are themselves part of the community. They do not want to go on strike. They are happy to have a job. They are happy to have a place to go to work, and they want to continue to work. They are not complaining about their wages. They are not complaining about anything. They are happy to be able to provide the services to the people that need them.

I can relate a personal story because my father is one who receives home care services. There was a time of confusion a couple of weeks ago when my father approached me and asked me whether or not he would have to begin paying for all the services that he was receiving because this is what the union was telling their members. My father approached me and said, is it true, Len, that in fact we will have to pay for the services? There was no truth in it whatsoever, but this message was coming down from whom? Who was the message coming down from? It was coming down from the union bosses, Mr. Chairman, who are associated directly with the members across the floor.

So, when I look at the despicable actions that we are seeing out there today, I cannot help but feel sorry for the state of our province because indeed we have people who are misrepresenting in fact what ordinary working people have in terms of their own goals, in terms of their own aspirations, in terms of serving the people that they are hired to serve.

I know that in rural Manitoba, no matter what community you go to, you hear the same story over and over again. We do not want to go on strike. We are happy to have a job. We want to serve the clients that have hired us to serve them, or we want to perform the services that we were hired to do, and we want to have nothing to do with what is going on with the strike in the city of Winnipeg.

So I do not understand why these innocent people, who have a desire only to perform the services that they are supposed to do, are being intimidated by others when in fact they have nothing to do with the strike whatsoever. So I would hope that members opposite would do a little bit of thinking about the impact and who is truly impacted by the decisions and the actions that they are taking.

Mr. Chairman, I know words like “deceit” and “lying” and “hypocrisy” are not words that should be used in this Chamber, but indeed, when you look at the actions that are being taken out there, how can one describe them in any other way? With that--

Point of Order

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Point of order, Kildonan, Mr. Chairperson, I have been listening very patiently to comments, very inciteful comments, by members opposite, but I think that the member, by indicating that people are lying, besmirches the reputation of everyone in this House, and I think he ought to withdraw those comments.

Mr. Derkach: If that offends members opposite, I withdraw those comments.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for that.

* * *

* (1610)

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude.

Mr. Derkach: I did not want to in any way offend members opposite, but let me say to conclude that I think members opposite should rethink their positions and should rethink the strategy that they are taking with regard to this situation and indeed allow Manitobans to deliver the services that they have been hired to deliver. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sale: In addressing this motion, I am, first of all, driven to the documents which the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) so reluctantly and so slowly tabled and so incompletely tabled in this House over the past week. It is striking, Mr. Chairperson, that the government has yet to table a shred of evidence in favour of their proposals. In fact, everything that they have tabled goes against the proposal of privatization in Winnipeg.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Let me first quote from page 6 of the Advisory Committee: “The Advisory Committee would consider it irresponsible to transfer the present program to a Home Care Agency”--let alone private home care delivery agencies--“without first articulating clear program standards that form the basis for measuring program approaches and activities in all regions.”

They go on to say that: “Clear articulation of core services is also essential to ensure that basic Home Care needs are met.” The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has for a week now gotten up and read portions of a 1986-87 report into the records, a Price Waterhouse report commissioned by the NDP government, commissioned because we knew that home care needed to adapt and to evolve. Unfortunately, we were prevented from acting on that report in an appropriate way. But this government has had eight long years to do even a few of the things that were identified in that study that needed attention. They might not have agreed with all the items that Price Waterhouse recommended. Indeed, our party would not agree with many of the suggestions for user fees, for example. Nevertheless, some real issues were identified and this government has had eight long years with which to work at the question of appropriate home care delivery. They have done virtually nothing in that time to improve and strengthen this system and to deal with the increasing caseload, client load, complexity of cases, technology available in the homes to deliver home care.

Mr. Acting Chairperson, in the Connie Curran study which was finally tabled on Friday, there are five projects recommended. [interjection] Oh, I am glad to see the Minister of Health is listening here. There are five projects recommended to the Minister of Health for his consideration.

First of all, Ms. Curran’s work teams recommended that there be a project testing outreach from nursing homes. I would invite the minister to table any work that was done in this regard. Ms. Curran’s work team suggested that a screening tool needed to be developed in some great detail and she provided some evidence why this was the case. I would invite the minister to table the screening tool. The same team recommended that there be a new project, a pilot project to examine hospital community referral process. I would invite the minister to table the results of that pilot project for us to understand. There was another suggestion that we should redesign the service delivery model and that is on page 8 of one of the appendices of this particular document. I could just quote from this page. The work teams recognized that the issue of the problem--the fix of individual program delivery components, that is--will not achieve the goals of restructuring. A redesign of the service system is necessary, et cetera.

Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am having some difficulty with the chirping from the member in the back bench. I wonder if you might call him to order.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Could I have order and decorum in the House, please. Thank you.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the fifth project that was recommended is the one that I presume was done by the untendered We Care project in Seven Oaks, a nursing service. Now that particular project called for an independent, external evaluator to be attached to that program. I would invite the minister to table the results of that independent, external evaluation of the We Care program.

An Honourable Member: You supported that project.

Mr. Sale: I have no idea whether it was a supportable project or not because we have never seen any evaluation results from it. I invite the minister to table the results of the evaluation done by an independent third party.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I am very disappointed that this government has decided to gut the capacity of the Canada Health Act to protect and preserve medicare. I want to talk in broad terms about the impact of privatizing home care. The minister has recognized and, indeed, has said on his feet on several occasions that the Canada Health Act does not protect home care. The simple reason is that back in 1977-78, when we left cost-sharing, it was not a listed service. It had not been included under the previous cost-sharing agreements across the country, so nothing there is included and protected.

Now the minister has also pointed out that a modern health care system is based to a great extent on the availability of a continuum of services, and home care is the base of that continuum. A high-quality, responsive, intensive home care system is a sine qua non of a good health care system in the 1990s. You cannot have an effective and efficient hospital and health care system without a solid home care system.

Now there is great concern on the part of many, many groups across the country that, with the federal Liberal cuts to health care, the Established Programs Financing Act, and provincial government’s unwillingness to protect elements of the system--notice, for example, the cuts to Pharmacare, vision care, hospital care--we are on our way to a two-tiered system of health care in Canada. That movement to a two-tiered system, Mr. Chairperson, is greatly accelerated by the increasing priority of home care, because home care is now the cheap way to privatize health care without having to then face the music in terms of breaking the Canada Health Act.

Consumers believe that the Canada Health Act can protect them if it is enforced. They do not realize that home care is not covered by that act.

An Honourable Member: Where was Tommy Douglas?

Mr. Sale: Tommy Douglas, unfortunately, has died, as the member opposite might know, and we honour his memory every time we protect medicare and we besmirch his memory every time we attack it.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

I will maintain decorum in the House. The members have the opportunity to put their message on the record. Right now, the member for Crescentwood has the floor. I would appreciate it if we listened. The honourable member for Crescentwood, to continue.

Mr. Sale: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

This is perhaps the real threat at the heart of the home care privatization scheme that this government is putting forward. There is no argument that we have used nonprofit agencies to deliver health care in this country over the years very effectively. Indeed, all of our hospitals are nonprofit agencies, and we applaud and value their work. We applaud and value the work of the Victorian Order of Nurses as a nonprofit agency.

* (1620)

But the health care system in Canada from the 1960s onwards has been a not-for-profit administered service, and when you take a core health care service such as home care and put it in the hands of for-profit agencies, you go straight to the heart of gutting medicare. Because of the central role that home care now plays in health care delivery, you cannot have for-profit home care delivery and then still say that we have protected the medicare system of our country, which is based on not-for-profit administration.

So this minister is moving in a direction which will certainly, in the medium and the longer term, seriously erode the universality of not-for-profit publicly administered medicare in this country. That is why thousands of seniors, thousands of recipients, are rising. Let me tell you, the NDP does not have the power to make 40,000 senior citizens get upset about something. We are not that powerful. They are upset because they know their medicare system is at risk by your government’s policies of privatization. We will stand with them, with the clients and with the workers, to defeat your privatization scheme at all costs and for as long as it takes, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I too would like to put a few words on the record in regard to the home care. As of Tuesday, 6 a.m., April 16, the home care attendants--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Just to remind the honourable member, it is the resolution moved by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) that we are debating at this time. I understand that he is discussing home care. As long as he is relevant towards the motion, the honourable member for Turtle Mountain, to continue.

Mr. Tweed: In regard to the motion, thank you. I would just like to comment that the weekend prior to the strike, I had several phone calls to my constituency office and to my home. The people that I talked to were home care providers, and they were feeling very, I guess, in a state of desertion or whatever. They had a strong concern. They were being threatened by their union leaders and by the information that was being put out there falsely, I might add, that if they provided any service to the people that needed the service, that wanted the service, and that as a government of Manitoba we were paying to provide the service, they would be reprimanded by their unions in the forms of fines, in the forms of blacklisting. To my understanding, even some of them, there were threats issued.

They were very concerned, not only for their own health, because they certainly had their health and were capable of providing good care to the people that they were looking after, they were concerned about the health of the people that they were going to withdraw their services from.

Many of the people that I talked to suggested that they had not voted in favour of a strike, and quite a few of them also suggested that they were not even really fully understanding of the reasons of the strike. They were led to believe that the government had intentions of privatizing 100 percent of the home care services which we know, based on the negotiating principles that have been brought forward, that it is an offer to privatize 25 percent of the services in Winnipeg.

I guess the only questions I might ask is that coming from a private industry where competition is day to day and we adjust day to day, I really have gained an understanding of how unions operate. That is, basically, if you can keep people in the dark long enough, they will believe you and march forward without any thought to whom they are hurting or also what they are depriving people of.

I think that as I check the records I do notice that this government, since 1988, has increased the home care budget. It has increased more than double. So I do not think it is a consideration of anybody to suggest that this government does not have compassion and concern for the home care people. The problem I have, again coming from the private sector, is that I see that the number of people we serve with our home care services has risen by 11 percent since 1988, yet the costs of doing that has increased 111 percent. I have a real concern with that as far as, are we getting more efficient? Are we delivering home care in the best possible means? Based on these numbers, simply, I would suggest that we are not. I would think that anybody that could put numbers down on paper would suggest that if your amount of people served has increased by 11 percent and the amount that it has cost you has risen by 111 percent, that is not good economics. Even to the other side, I would think that they would be able to understand the simple facts.

I often, also in the House, Mr. Chairperson, cringe when the word “profit” is brought up, because it seems that no matter what is being talked about or what is being suggested by the government, if the word “profit” enters into it, the members opposite, I would suggest, who have never probably participated in a profitable industry, and I would probably like to check resumes to see if they have ever participated in any kind of an industry where they were judged based on their productivity instead of just showing up for their nine-to-five times, that they might understand the emphasis and the desire for profit to be integrated into our system.

As the honourable member for St. Vital had suggested, when you suggest profit and we hear the cries and the moans from the other side, it makes me think, is everybody that is involved in this society today that is involved with profit unable to deliver the best service? It does not make sense to me that profit in any term, in any way you express the word “profit,” would be deemed as being bad. If I can deliver a service to someone else at a profit, and a better service, I cannot see a problem with that. Although I do understand, again, coming from the opposite members’ backgrounds, that that may be a problem.

As I sit here too, I also, reading through the budget and some of the budget discussions that we have had, again refer to the members opposite; here is a group of people that voted against a government of Manitoba adding $8-million more to the home care service.

You talk about what is right for the people delivering the service or what is wrong, but does it make any sense that you would vote against something that you are so vigilantly defending at this point in time to us? You are standing up and saying that it will never be good unless we put more money into it, and we cannot get profit into it because that will taint them. The people will not provide the good service. I suggest, you cannot have it both ways. You either vote for the increase in the spending, which you did not-- and yet you stand up and defend the union’s position that they would withdraw services from the people in Manitoba that need it most.

As I sat here earlier today too, I saw a former member of the Choices group stand up and propose none. It seems like, I do not know what the term is, but when you have a name that says “choices,” you would think that you would have options, but, again, we see none brought forward by the members opposite.

I also think, as I sit here and listen, that the members opposite, when they cannot win their argument with the facts, they tend to get into personal attacks, obviously, on the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), on the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). Their attacks become a little tiring, but I guess they feel that they are winning points with the public when they attack a personality instead of the government or the policies that we are bringing forward.

I can attest, Mr. Chairperson, that I have attended several meetings throughout the province with the Minister of Health. He has attended throughout rural Manitoba. He has attended throughout all of the city of Winnipeg, and I do not think you will find a more dedicated minister as far as listening to what the people have to say and trying to put the best deal forward for what they are trying to do. I think he is a kind, compassionate man and he has a concern truly for the patient, unlike the members opposite whose only concern is for the union bosses that they represent here in the House and they are the ones who are standing up to support the withdrawing of services from the people of Manitoba who need it most.

* (1630)

They may cajole, they may make remarks from the sides, but I suggest to you that the members opposite stand for the union. They do not stand for the client. They stand for the union, and they support the union in their withdrawal of services to the most vulnerable people in the province of Manitoba. I say to that, shame. I think it is a terrible shame that these people have to suffer for an ideological point of view that does not make sense in today’s changing world. The whole world is changing rapidly, and if you do not get on the ship you are going to sink.

So I suggest to the members opposite to take a hard look at where home care is going, take a hard look at what the government is putting into the program and how we are going to make it better for the people of the province of Manitoba. I also ask that the members opposite, when they are criticizing get away from the personal stuff. It does not have any bearing or any effect on the people and the province of Manitoba. The facts are the facts, Mr. Chairperson, and I would suggest that the members opposite take a hard look at their policies and their programs. I would suggest that they consider standing with the clients instead of with the unions when it comes to taking care of the people of the province of Manitoba. Thank you.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I welcome the opportunity of dealing with the resolution that I brought forward that dealt specifically with the inability of the minister to deal with the home care problem.

I do have to comment on the comments of the member who just proceeded me. I agree there ought not to be personal attacks or condemnations in this Chamber, and I implore members opposite to cease and desist. If one were to look at Hansard debates and look at the personal comments that have been levelled, particularly by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), at virtually everyone in this Chamber, I think it is an absolute disgrace. I agree with the member that the Minister of Health ought to cease and desist from levelling those kind of comments.

Let us get a little bit of a grip on reality here in this Chamber, Mr. Chairperson. I sat here and listened to debates of members opposite, and what did I hear? Somehow this whole privatization scheme, this plot, was somehow hatched by the union movement, by the union bosses, as members have repeated over and over again, or somehow it was hatched by the NDP. The fact that virtually every health care organization in the province of Manitoba is opposing home care has no bearing on members opposite. The fact that there is no major study or recommendation dealing with home care and justifying the government’s decision seems to be lost on members opposite.

Where did this idea come from? Where did the privatization come from? It comes from the one document that members opposite will refuse to acknowledge or to deal with in this Chamber and that is their own Treasury Board submission, the government’s submission. The minister signed this submission, the Premier approved it, all of them front bench. The two front benches in this Chamber approved this plan, the plan to privatize home care.

What does this plan say? Members opposite, the minister in fact refuses to deal with this document because I asked him about it in Question Period. What does this document, the government plan say? It says, and I quote, divestiture of all service delivery. It does not say some. It does not say partial. It says divestiture of all service delivery is the policy of Manitoba Health.

Mr. Chairperson, they can play games with numbers. They can say oh, yes, we are only privatizing at this point 25 percent of Winnipeg, and we are only privatizing all of the nursing services at this point. Their health policy, which they are refusing to defend, says divestiture of all service delivery. Government document, cabinet document, signed by the Minister of Health, approved by the front bench. I do not know if the backbenchers had opportunity to see this document. I will provide it to you, but it is your government, your document, your policy.

Members opposite like to talk about user fees, and they like to say that the union bosses or the NDP made up the concept of user fees. Where did that concept come from? Let us look in the government document. Let us look in the minister’s cabinet documents, signed by the Minister of Health, approved by both front benches of members opposite. It talks about user fees, it talks about imposing user fees on home care, and let me quote from the government document What Will Be under home care. Services to be categorized: core services, government funded, as is today. Noncore services, customer funded, as is today. But wait, there is another line, core services, government/customer funded. The customer, and I hate that term for clients and patients. Customers. They make it like they are selling sausages, but nonetheless it says in this document core services, government are customer funded. That is user fees. And they can say anything they want, but their own document, their own policy calls for user fees on home care services.

What Will Be, and the cabinet document states core services, government/customer share costs. So they may blame the union movement, they may blame the NDP, they may blame the Manitoba Society of Seniors, they may blame the Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped, they may blame every disabled group in the city of Winnipeg, they may blame the home care workers, they may blame the home care clients. It is their policy, it is their document, and they cannot shy away from that.

This is the least referred to document in the history, I suggest, of cabinet documents in the Province of Manitoba, because they do not want to acknowledge it. They do not want to acknowledge that Manitobans know what government policy is. The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) refuses to deal with it. The backbenchers and members opposite refuse to deal with it. Instead, the Minister of Health finds reports from 10 or 15 years ago that he wants to deal with, but he cannot deal with his own cabinet document, his own cabinet submission that said they would be privatizing completely home care.

Now, the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), I believe, talked about rural Manitoba. What did this document say about rural Manitoba? When the minister was out and when the member was touring with the minister, did the minister say, did he advise the member what was in the cabinet document about rural Manitoba? Let me indicate what it says, and let me remind you, the government document, this is not an NDP document, this is your government’s document, and what does it say? Ten regional health associations developed, regional health associations will take over all service delivery in the rural areas, including home care by April 1997.

Now, members opposite might say, well, perhaps that will be government home care. The plan in this document indicates there will be no government home care by that time for those rural health divisions to take over. Who will be left? The private companies, the private friends of the members opposite. Members opposite suggest that somehow we are attacking private companies. Let me tell you what is in this document dealing with private companies. This document says that the city of Winnipeg will be divided up into four quarters and who will be given contracts: northeast quadrant, Drake Medox; southwest quadrant--oh, there is a familiar name--We Care; southeast quadrant and northwest quadrant. They are going to divide the city of Winnipeg up and give a monopoly.

Now the minister took exception to the word “monopoly,” but once you give a monopoly, one private company, one service delivery in one section, what option does the client have? Can the client phone up and say, no I do not like it? No, they are stuck with the private deliverer of care in that region. So let us get a grip on the issue here in this Chamber. The issue here is privatization, and it is not privatization as made up by members of the union movement or by the workers or by the public. It is the government’s own document. So perhaps we should start from that premise. Perhaps we should start debating the government policy, and we have been trying to do that in Estimates.

That is why we have been questioning the minister, and that is why we have brought this motion against this minister. We have said, okay, we have got the document, we see what government policy is, now tell us where your studies are, tell us where your rationalization is. That is where the argument breaks down, because they have no rationalization and they have no studies and they have no experts and they have no justification whatsoever for this privatization plan.

* (1640)

So this takes us all back to the beginning. This document, their plan, no justification, they have to defend it. That is why we are facing a strike; that is why patients are in the situation they are in. It is not because of some plot that has been staged by anyone. It is because the government decided, for whatever reason, and we are only still trying to find out--the government made a decision to privatize home care and now they cannot justify it. Now they cannot find any rationale for it, so now what are they doing? Now they are looking for straw men; they are looking for people to blame for the mess that they found themselves in. They found themselves in a political mess, Mr. Chairperson, and their way out is to attack and to attack and to attack.

But I only suggest the members opposite, look at your own cabinet document. If it is such a good policy, defend it. If it is not a good policy, if you cannot justify it, there is nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. There is nothing wrong with saying, we made a mistake, we are going back to the drawing board. I think you would be respected by the public of Manitoba and the 1,500 people that were out there today, if you were to have the courage to say, we made a mistake, we are going back to the drawing board, and we are not going to go on this scheme and this plan to privatize. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I want to look at the resolution and speak to the resolution as moved by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in discussion in this House. However, before I do that, I think it is important to note that home care attendants went on strike on April 16, and not only did home care attendants in the city of Winnipeg go on strike, some home care workers in rural Manitoba went on strike. What I find most interesting about the fact that rural home care workers went on strike is simply by the way the whole issue was communicated to them.

Mr. Chairperson, I want to indicate to you that I received a number of calls from home care workers asking whether, in fact, they could be penalized, and whether government would, in fact, not pay them, penalize them and they would not be paid if they did not go out on strike or if they could be penalized some other way. My response to them was that their superior staff should have told them that there were no penalties and that there would be no retribution should they decide to continue to go to work and serve the most vulnerable sector in society, mainly our senior people that cannot help themselves.

Secondly, I received a phone call from a client. This person is in a wheelchair, cannot dress himself, cannot wash himself, and said he had been told that he would not be washed, bathed, clothed or helped in and out of his bed because the home care workers would be out on strike; he had been told, and do not call your member of the Legislature. The home care worker that called me said the same thing. He had been told that in no uncertain terms are you to call your member of the Legislature. The home care co-ordinator in my area, when I called her and asked her why these people were on strike, said to me this: I have no right to talk to you.

Since, when can members of my constituency or should members of my constituency be told, you have no right to talk to your member who is duly elected to represent them? What kind of a society have we evolved into? What kind of a police state are our opposition members supporting? You are directing and supporting union bosses who tell their union staff to threaten people--unconscionable; unheard of in this province.

Now, the other thing that I cannot understand, Mr. Chairperson, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to stand in this House, is the opposition members not supporting the budget that we have just passed. They voted against an $8-million increase to home care, an increase to provide better home care, more equitable home care to vulnerable people, and the opposition members stand and vote against that initiative.

We have increased our home care budget since 1988 from $38 million to $91 million. That is almost a tripling of the home care budget. Yet the opposition members at each and every opportunity have voted to deny our senior people that are not able to help themselves that increase in budget. Every time they have voted against that budget increase. In essence, they have voted against services to those that require home care. They sit there and chuckle and support the union bosses and the increased salaries that these union bosses are now negotiating on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The resolution that the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), in fact, moved in this House is erroneous. I would suggest that we might have thrown out this resolution based on its inaccuracy. It says that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is condemned for his failure to provide any research or recommendations to support the contracting out of home care services to private, for-profit companies. Mr. Chairperson, there is no mention, and neither has the Minister of Health at any time indicated to this House or anybody else, that it would be private, for-profit companies that would be asked to tender for this service. Anybody can tender for this service. The Victorian Order of Nurses, which is a nonprofit group, is now providing services and can tender to provide the services to the home care clients in this province. The union which is opposing this action has every right in the world to tender to provide services to those most vulnerable. Any other group, nonprofit group, has the right to tender to provide services of this kind to the home care clients.

The one thing that the opposition members are afraid of and fear most is that you are going to finally bring the amount of money required to provide the services at the least cost and that the abuses which have been clearly identified by letter to us by some of the home care providers currently will be eliminated. That is what they are afraid of. That is what the unions are afraid of, and the union bosses are absolutely paranoid about losing its clientele, its membership. They are afraid that, if they do not apply the kind of fearmongering and tactics that they used to threaten some of our home care workers and our clientele, if they do not apply those kind of tactics, they will lose their union membership.

Therefore, the opposition members are dependent on the unions for funding to raise money for their next campaign and are now sitting there across the way paranoid that their funding coffers will be depleted because the unions will no longer be able to support them.

Ladies and gentlemen, most of us that have been involved in private business know that if you keep on spending without looking at the means of where the funds are going to come from, you very quickly run broke. I suggest to you that previous NDP governments in other provinces have demonstrated clearly their inability to administer, to budget and maintain government at a level of affordability. They have simply not been able to without fee. Every NDP government in this country today applies a fee for service. This resolution implies that that is not so. So there are implied inaccuracies in this resolution as well as real.

* (1650)

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

The honourable member for Thompson.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Thank you.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I was going to go.

Mr. Ashton: I yield to my colleague, if that is--I wish to speak but--

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for the honourable member for Thompson to yield to the member for Radisson? Is there leave?

An Honourable Member: I might object.

Mr. Chairperson: No? Leave would be denied. It does not matter. He does not need leave anyway. He can get up again after.

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for your willingness to ensure that I have leave to speak and join the debate on this crucial issue in terms of the provision of health care for Manitobans.

This is a turning point, this strike and this issue of privatizing home care is a turning point for the provision of health care services in Manitoba because, as we heard today in Question Period, because home care is not covered under the Canada Health Act, it provides a way that this government and other governments like it that want to see us move away from medicare can find a way of offloading services into the community, privatizing them and then ensuring that they are not going to be covered under medicare.

This is why this is such an important issue, and I believe that this is why the health care workers that are on strike, the home care workers are fighting a battle that is very important to each and every citizen of Manitoba. It is not just on behalf of those home care workers, it is on behalf of all of us, all the clients, all of the users of our health care system, all of us that use it today and will need services like home care in the future.

Let this government not think that they are pulling the wool over the eyes of anyone when they try and suggest that this is not an issue about privatization of health care services. It is. It is also an issue of dignity. I would suggest that the government, in not ensuring the dignity of home care workers, is not ensuring the dignity of the patients that rely on home care services. That is what home care is about.

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

It is about dignity for patients who are much better off getting home care and treatment, health care services in their home. Not only is it better because they get individualized care, it is better because they have that dignity as being more independent and staying in their home, and they need the support not only of the caring home care worker, which they have had under the existing system, they need the support of the community. That is why we are going to fight to prevent this government from seeing that people are penalized by paying user fees to pay for home care.

If the minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) are correct that this is going to save money, passing that saving off on to the backs of elderly, terminally ill, chronically ill and the disabled is reprehensible and has no place in any kind of civilized or democratic society. That is why we are fighting this, and that is why those home care workers are standing up and saying they are fighting for the dignity of the patients that they treat by ensuring that there is going to be no user fees.

I would suggest that ultimately that is where this government is going. This year they may be creating this four-sector monopoly in the city of Winnipeg where there is going to be no competition, and each of the private companies that win the contracting out will have the assurance of getting government subsidy. They will eventually be able to cut back the funding for those companies and they will eventually be forced to increase user fees and fees to their clients so that they can keep their profits up.

I just want to talk a little bit about that, because I am sure that the majority of people in the province of Manitoba, like us, would rather see subsidy going to pay for home care going to the pockets of those home care workers that treat the patients and work with the patients on a daily or weekly basis and have developed a relationship with those patients. They would rather see them get, for example, in the case of a registered nurse, a salary of approximately $23 an hour. They would rather see it go to the nurse than go to the pocket of some boss for We Care. They would rather see that.

We know that this is what this government is up to; they are really up to just trying to bust the union. That is what this is about; that is what it was about in the strike with the university professors; that is what it was about with the strike with the emergency wards; that is what they are trying to do with education, with their reprehensible document about ensuring quality and accountability in education. They are out to union-bust.

It is a philosophical or ideological debate. That is what we are here to do. We have very different beliefs than you do, and one of the things that we believe in the depth of our soul is there is no place for profit, no place for profit in health care or in education. That is what this debate is about. It is reprehensible to make money off people who, of no fault of their own, are aging, are ill, are chronically or terminally ill. That is what this is about, and the ideological argument that it is reasonable to privatize home care is reprehensible.

I just want to talk a little bit about the manipulation that is going on with this government in terms of trying to sway the public. When I look at the way that they have handled the questions that have come from Mr. Chomiak, the MLA for Kildonan, or Mr. Doer, the MLA for Concordia and the other people that have asked questions about getting studies that are going to justify this kind of an action, it is clear. One day they have said one thing; one day they have said another thing. One day they have got one study apparently that can justify this; the next day we find out that their own advisory committees have not recommended or supported this kind of initiative to introduce, as they say, competition in the provision of home care services. It is reprehensible, it is manipulative, and it is just not true, Mr. Acting Chairperson.

I would also just like to reiterate what I think that this government is going to do. They boast now of increasing by $8 million the funding for home care in the province, and it is the first year that they have increased that line, even though we know that home care is the way to go in any sane health reform, that it is better for patients to have treatment in their homes as much as possible, that it costs a fraction to treat people in their homes than in personal care homes or in hospitals. I think the difference in one year is $18,000, but the real issue here is eventually the government will reduce that line item in their budget. They will reduce the money allocated for home care, and that is when we are really going to see the competition and the increase in user fees and the loss of a number of people in our community who cannot afford to pay the fees that We Care has--in some cases, some $23 per hour for care--when they are going to go without that care.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

It is going to cost the government more because they will be at the door at the emergency wards, they will be at the need of other health care services like personal care homes or nursing homes, and it is completely backwards for this government to try and make the argument that this is going to save money.

If, in fact, there are problems in the existing delivery of services in home care, for example, with the I.V. program, which some nurses suggest this government has deliberately kept from working efficiently so that they can create the feeling in the public system or with the public system that there are problems so that gives them some kind of, in their mind, justification for privatization. That is the way that governments of this ilk always try and privatize services. First, they try and create so much chaos in the public system that people are concerned; then they will go ahead and try to use that as their justification for privatization. If any of that is true, all that it takes is a commitment to public health care and political will to make the public system more efficient and work better.

So any bureaucratic problems in the delivery of home care as it is now do not need privatization. What it needs is a commitment to public health and a commitment to those health care patients that rely on home care.

* (1700)

In closing, I just want to talk a little bit about how important it is for no user fees for clients who are of low income. I have had people on the phone crying because they are concerned about not getting treatment, as I am sure we all have, and I just want to say that it is reprehensible that this government will try to manipulate and use this as a political issue for their own ideological ends. This is not going to work, they have gone too far, and this is one issue, I think, where people are going to see them for what they really are, where there is no care, not only for the home care workers, but by extension of that for the home care patients. Thank you very much.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chairman, if there was ever any doubt of the tactics and who the members opposite support and who the members opposite are governed by, that was dispelled totally on Friday afternoon. On Friday afternoon, I cannot say it was the dead of night because it was afternoon, obviously, but the fact of the matter is, in a time when expectations, at least, particularly under the new rules of this House that were brought in, there was an anticipation that for Fridays, particularly Friday afternoons, being a committee day, there would be only a minimum of people here to carry on the question of Estimates discussion.

That is not what happened. What happened was, the member from Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) introduced a motion of censure for the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and he brought in 12 of his caucus members to back him up, 12 bully boys to come in here and try and intimidate the Minister of Health. That kind of thing certainly was uncalled for.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to advise the honourable minister that all honourable members are honourable and that he choose his words very carefully.

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Chair, at a time when the expectations were that there would be the minister and the critic and perhaps the odd other member about, you bring in a motion such as this one, full well the understanding was that there would be no votes on committee day. This is the first time we have had that opportunity to deal with that particular day. So this is the first time that we have had actually a Friday as a committee day since the rules have been changed, and I am disappointed. I am very disappointed that the member would--the member can bring a motion any time he wishes, but to do it late on a Friday afternoon, I think, is certainly not in the spirit of the rules that were negotiated and adopted by all members of this House.

Mr. Chairperson, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) can rationalize all he wishes. The fact of the matter is, to do it in that manner particularly was extremely disappointing from my point of view, particularly in the spirit of the work that had been done by all members of the House in terms of trying to change the rules.

Mr. Chairperson, that aside, I want to speak to the motion. The motion, of course, is to censure and condemn the minister for failing to do a certain number of things. [interjection] It is a very serious matter, to condemn the member. The members opposite want to clap and giggle and laugh as they have been doing all afternoon with respect to this particular issue. The fact of the matter is, there is no more dedicated person, no more caring person in this House than the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). I have sat in a caucus with him for, I am reminded now, just over 10 years, and I have seen the kind of interest, the kind of effort that he has put forward, when he was a critic when we were in opposition, when he was the Attorney-General and when he is now the Minister of Health.

I sit in Treasury Board, and I have since we have been in government. I see what the minister does when he brings his Health Estimates forward to Treasury Board. He fights tooth and nail in support of his department, in support of his efforts to try and provide health care to the citizens of Manitoba, good, solid health care. Let me tell you, I and my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Cummings) are the only two members of Treasury Board who have been there since Day One, since 1988, when we came into office. We both can bear witness to the fact of the interest, the concern and the efforts performed by the Minister of Health. He has done more in terms of health care on behalf of his government here than any other province in the country. We spend more money on health care than any other province in the country. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have said at the beginning of this meeting that I would maintain decorum, and I will maintain decorum. All honourable members will have an opportunity to put their remarks on the record. At this time, the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the floor. The honourable minister, to continue.

Mr. Ernst: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is amazing. I find the members opposite come in here and, all of a sudden, anything that has anything to do with a private, for-profit operation somehow is going to absolutely destroy the health care system. I have heard that come from the mouths of many members opposite. Anything to do with private, for-profit is the death knell of medicare.

An Honourable Member: That is what the public feels.

Mr. Ernst: Let me ask the question, Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, then how come every fee-for-service doctor is in this business to make a profit and it has not fallen apart? Every lab that does the tests that are required by the doctors to make diagnoses are all private. They make a profit, or they are supposed to make a profit, at least. They may not all make a profit, but they are a profit-making corporation. How come, for the years and years that those private labs have operated, the health care system has not fallen apart?

Even under the NDP, there were private labs operating. Every radiologist outside of a hospital is in a private, for-profit business. Now, Mr. Chairman, the health care system has not fallen apart, because they are in there providing radiology. It is amazing that all of a sudden a private supplier of home care services, some home care services--the VON have been providing home care services for a considerable length of time, but private. So the members opposite, somehow find that--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable minister’s comments. If there are some members who want to carry on a conversation, I would appreciate they do so in the hall. The honourable minister to continue.

Mr. Ernst: If for some reason the members opposite think that simply because something is motivated by a profit is wrong--I mean, the entire North American economy, by and large, runs on that basis--and that the entire world would collapse, the entire economic system would collapse, the entire North American--as a matter of fact, the entire free world would collapse if their premise was the right premise.

Their premise is not the right premise. Their premise is the wrong premise. They are stuck in the past. They are stuck with their union buddies who are yanking their chains, and you can see that every time you say that, up they pop. You touch the hot button and up they pop, with their hidebound ideology dealing with their union buddies and their union bosses who are telling them how and what to do.

They think the only person in the world, and I find that incongruous, who can provide an effective service is a government employee, yet it was not very long ago when I heard members opposite popping up and condemning the existing system, condemning the existing system because it did not work, it was not providing service, it was not doing the things that they thought should happen. That is coming from members opposite again, but as soon as their union buddies yanked on the chain, bingo, they are right back on-stream, right back onside.

* (1710)

So we heard earlier the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) talk about the kind of threats and intimidation that members of that union are putting against vulnerable women in the middle of a remote location in the province of Manitoba. That is unacceptable. That should never occur, and the members opposite ought to think a little bit about the kind of support they are providing when situations like that occur, because their member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) stands up to defend women on a daily basis. Where was she defending this woman who was being threatened by two members of that union for attempting to provide service to somebody who was in need of that service, somebody who was vulnerable, somebody who needed to have--thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. I will continue at my next opportunity.

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

Mr. Ashton: First of all, I want to ensure the government House leader, as I did in our private discussions, that our intent on Friday in moving this motion was no different than the intent on Mondays under the old rules. We knew it would not come to a recorded vote. In fact, we did not even expect it to come to a voice vote, but I do believe, too, that if there is a concern about the requirement that there be two people present for a recorded vote on a Friday, that that can, with the co-operation of the House, be waived, as well.

That was not our intent. Our intent was to get a debate on this issue, and, quite frankly, Mr. Chairperson, I am glad we are finally getting a chance to debate this issue. We have tried to have emergency debates; both opposition parties have. We have tried to have the matter dealt with in this House in other ways. We have tried to get this government to put this to a vote. Start with the clients, the people who are served by home care.

But you know what is interesting, Mr. Chairperson, is that throughout the debate, if you can call it that, on this issue, and this is really the first real debate we have had, the thing that has characterized the government’s response to any of the concerns that have been expressed has been a very predictable script.

Mr. Chairperson, if you get up in the House, if you ask a question on home care, I can tell you it is going to be a rare answer that does not include some reference to union bosses. In fact, the government House leader got off the script. He said union buddies. You know, the script is union bosses. We have heard it time and time again. They must hand this out at the beginning of every day and remind them, you have got to go in there and talk about union bosses. I found it amazing when the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) got up and said, the NDP gets support from unions. He was going on. This may come as news to members opposite.

By the way, I had gone through the contribution lists from all three parties. We can get into that if they want to get into that. Yes, we always have had support. The New Democratic Party has always had support from the labour movement, surprise, surprise. You know how much we get, Mr. Chairperson? We have funds from the labour movement--9 percent, 9 percent. The remaining 91 percent is from individuals. [interjection]

Well, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) says we will see what happens when the legislation comes out. The so-called Minister of Labour, Mr. Chairperson, who has gone out of his way--he would go and visit union offices when he started off his ministry. He said, do not worry, we are going to bring in a few minor changes to labour relations. Well, I wonder what has happened since then? Maybe some other members of his caucus are now running the show because this so-called Minister of Labour now has given up any pretense of objectivity. This is the Minister of Labour--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have been giving a fair bit of leniency in accordance with this resolution because it does have quite a wide varying role to it, but I do believe the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has gone a little further away from it than I can understand within the motion. So I would ask the honourable member to be a little bit more relevant towards the motion. The honourable member, to continue.

Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must apologize. I was distracted from the so-called Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) who, in concert with the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), is on some sort of a --especially the Minister of Health, because I have seen the Minister of Health. I had some respect for the Minister of Health in Justice. I had some respect for him as government House leader. I dealt with him as government House leader. I say to the Minister of Health he has had a 10 year decade long vendetta against anything connected with labour, organized workers. I remember the speeches he used to give as the Labour critic when he was in opposition, and I do not know why every time the issue comes up, this is all the government members can do.

Mr. Chairperson, you know what is interesting is if government members will take the time to talk to people, the public of Manitoba, they will find one thing here. The key issue for most people is not the--they can say, oh, the NDP is support from unions. I can get up and I could say to the Minister of Labour that his current employer gave $25,000, Great-West Life, to the Conservative Party. What does that make him? Does that make him a corporate boss? Am I going to get up every day and say the Minister of Labour is a corporate boss?

Mr. Chairperson, let us get the debate back on the issues. I look forward to the comments from the Minister of Labour. I look forward to the comments from him. I could get up and point out that the Conservatives got $2,000 last election from guess what, from We Care. We could get into the connections between We Care and the Conservatives. Surprise, surprise.

I think most people realize that this government gets a significant amount of support from corporations like Great-West Life, from We Care, many of whom have a direct interest in this issue. But you know what, Mr. Chairperson? I know one thing. I know one thing--that the people of Manitoba judge issues like this based on the merits of the issue. We can get into union bosses. I can call the Minister of Labour a corporate whatever. I can call the Minister of Health --we have got to net that out of this, because what is happening now--and for all this talk here, people get up and most of the afternoon we have heard talk about this or that or the other related to the current labour dispute. The key issue here is what is best for clients, what is best for the health care system. That is the key issue.

To the members opposite, you know they did not campaign on privatizing the home care system. That brings about a certain obligation, I believe, if you campaign on something. I will tell you, Mr. Chairperson, the government campaigned on some things, and they won the election on those things. If you want to get into some of that, I would say in the last election the balanced budget legislation, for example, there were disagreements in the House over that, but they campaigned on it very openly and people obviously supported them. I think they supported them on some other reasons because of what I call a fraudulent election campaign.

What do you say to a government, Mr. Chairperson, that campaigns on no cuts to health care? Pharmacare, a 33 percent cut, that was not in the election. Home care privatization, that was not in the election. Eye care, that was not in the election, but I believe there is an obligation--other issues--privatization of MTS. I can run through all sorts of other issues, but they did not campaign on it. They must, therefore, support an open public debate on this issue.

Why have we brought in this particular motion censuring the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae)? Because throughout this entire discussion on this issue there has been no real public input and no public debate. At the very least this government should have listened to the people of Manitoba on this issue. If they did not have the courage to raise this as an election issue, we are now in a situation where they could raise this, they could go to public hearings, they could ask the clients, they could set up an independent committee.

It is amazing, we set MLAs’ salaries to an independent commission. Could they not develop some sort of independent way of looking at this? Mr. Chairperson, that is the sad part of what is happening here. The government is desperately trying to find any way possible to get this issue back on their terms, and they are falling back down--I mean the only thing they have not done in this case is pull out the old red scare, and I guess maybe that has got something to do with the new world we live in when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is off in mainland China currently. It is a little bit difficult to get into that. He has raised that many a time.

So they are getting into the classic old, sort of, the union bosses, but I have got news for members opposite. The public of Manitoba is very concerned about what they are doing. They want this government to listen, and I made the suggestion earlier. I would say the two most difficult things you could say on a personal basis, and it is doubly more difficult as government, and No. 1 is, I am sorry; No. 2 is, I made a mistake.

* (1720)

An Honourable Member: You sure did. You have made a lot of them.

Mr. Ashton: When I make mistakes, I admit it. Yes, to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), I have made mistakes and it is tough to admit it, but sometimes you have got to do it.

In this case, this government has made a mistake. Even its own friends are saying it; people like Fred Cleverley, who is very known for his sympathies.

An Honourable Member: Let us let it run. Let it run.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the Deputy Premier says let it run. I do not want to see the damage that is going to take place to a system of more than two decades of public home care just because the Deputy Premier wants to let it run. This is not something we can experiment with. This government does not have public support for what it is doing.

An Honourable Member: Yes, we do.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the Deputy Premier says it does. Why will they not put it to a vote then of the clients? Let us start with the clients. They say they are concerned about the clients. What are they afraid of? I have a suggestion. If they cannot say they made a mistake, at least they can come up with some mechanism to get us out of this bind. We can get here, we can trade back and forth for the rest of the day and the next several weeks with the same sort of rhetoric, but there is a very serious situation in this province currently, and something has got to be done to resolve it. I already believe that the only fair way to do it is to try and get an objective situation, and I believe the only way to start that is to at least put the changes to home care on hold. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Let me begin where the member for Thompson left off when he said we should be talking about the merits of the issue, we should be talking about whether or not there is public support, we should be talking about whether or not there is a practical aspect to this. I have only heard some of the more recent remarks from the opposition, but I have been listening through Question Period and through their public pronouncements in front of the media, and it seems to me the furthest thing from their minds is the merits of the issue.

So, when he starts to raise the question of whether or not we are throwing out red herrings, then, for goodness’ sake, look at what the opposition, led by their position, is saying. Because it is not a matter of looking at whether or not there is another way of providing services, it is a matter of saying, nah, nyet, no-no, no change. That position, frankly, is even more reprehensible than some of the comments that have been made, purported to come from the members of the opposition, certainly supported by them, when they started talking about the need to have services withdrawn, when they talk about the fact that there is absolutely no way to deal with this service other than through a publicly funded, publicly operated system.

What the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has put forward is a practical approach to providing some additional choice of services within the system and that statement, unfortunately, when it gets out in the public and when it is being conveyed to the clients by those who are opposed to any change or by those who in some way are offended by the idea of change, they immediately start to talk about user fees. I have two offices in my constituency, plus my office number here which is advertised regularly in the paper, and the only calls I have had are, why are you going to start charging me fees? That is the rumour that people are being fed.

That is what people are being fed by those who sit over there and chuckle about what they think might be an opportunity to score a few political points. The very fact that they are talking through some of those in the union who are very concerned about the issue, and I understand their concern, but if they want to continue to put forward falsehoods about whether or not there is any issue at any time about a user fee, then they should be, I think, called to task.

Unfortunately, at twenty-five after five on a Monday afternoon, I am not too sure there is going to be a whole lot of publicity in the public, but I certainly intend to circulate what is being said in this House. The concerns of the clients out there who have called me is that they want to be assured that the service will continue to be of a high standard--that can be guaranteed; that the service will continue to be free and that is without question; that the service will continue to be consistent so that if they become comfortable with a worker that they can rest assured that that will continue as long as is reasonable. That is just as easy to control in another process as it is under today’s system.

Strangely enough, my riding is a rural riding where no changes were contemplated. We are talking about changes in an opportunity in Winnipeg. In rural ridings, in rural parts of the province, it has nothing to do with ridings, the changes are not even contemplated. The minister has said he intends to look at the process after having 25 percent of the city service contracted.

Now the member from Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) wants to sit over there and shake his head and wave papers around which I cannot read from here, even with my bifocals on, but the bottom line is that he knows full well that they are using the opportunity to provide scare tactics across the province, across the province to imply to the clients that they are somehow going to be at risk. The only risk that is out there today is for those who are having their services withdrawn and life made to be as awkward for them as possible. Again, the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has moved diligently, aggressively, to do everything possible to make sure we protect the best interests of those clients.

The members opposite do not necessarily want to listen to those types of facts because they believe this is an opportunity, and I would give the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) some credit. He said this is not a labour issue. He made that comment. He made it, however, in a context that I disagree with because the fact is that this is a reasoned opportunity to look at a different delivery system, and governments of all stripes and all provinces are looking at a better and improved way of delivering services.

When seven of the provinces of this country have already taken the opportunity to provide some choice in the way services are being delivered, then you can be guaranteed that there are lots of models out there that show that this method of delivery can provide some options for the public which, in fact, the public appreciates. I would challenge the members across the way. When they were continually talking about public housing a few years ago, one thing that they never contemplated, I will bet, was the fact that we now have private citizens, senior citizens, being prepared to invest in their own life-leases in order to take over the responsibility and provide decent accommodations for themselves and for future generations.

At the same time, you can provide a mix of that with publicly funded and publicly supported housing for those same seniors. It works very, very well. It is only as recently as about a half dozen years ago the members across the way were flailing away at our Housing department for not having provided additional funds for that service. So I say to the members opposite, let us start talking about the facts of the issue and let us stop playing games with the lives, and frankly abusing the sensibilities of the seniors, the sensibilities of many of the personal caregivers who are out there--some of them on the picket line, some of them not--but not necessarily being given all of the facts. I suggest that a rational review by them and by the clients will very quickly come to the realization that this is, in fact, a realistic option and one where we can provide a high level of care and provide some options to the people in the public, who are demanding, particularly those who are the most vulnerable, not demanding but needing these very, very personalized services that they must receive.

I think the other problem we have is that, frankly, when we get into a strike and walk-out situation, tempers begin to rise, and, frankly, we have comments that are being made to some of the clients out there by their previous servers that do not serve in the best interests of their peace of mind, nor do they serve in the best interests of arriving at a reasonable conclusion to how this sort of service can be phased in.

As I look, Mr. Chairman, at the level of--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5:30 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is now adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).