HEALTH
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please.
This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates in the Department of Health. We are on Resolution 21.1, Administration and Finance, Minister's Salary.
At this time, I would just like to update us on our rulings from the past.
On May 7, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), respecting remarks by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), which he claimed were not relevant to the issue at hand.
I have reviewed Hansard and conclude that the honourable minister's remarks were not strictly relevant and that the honourable member did have a point of order. I would urge all honourable members to keep their remarks strictly relevant to the item under consideration in accordance with subrule 70.3, thereby assisting us to maintain decorum in this committee as we have in the past.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Chairperson, during the course of these Estimates, we, to a certain extent, were able to obtain some information from the minister with respect to--after the matters settled down, after the initial preliminary period of the Estimates matters settled down, we were able to get some answers from the minister in some very important questions in very important issues.
Mr. Chairperson, the overriding issue that has been brought to our attention time and time again, both in Question Period and during the course of Estimates, is the very, very terrible situation that exists in home care. I want to deal with that issue for a few moments.
Mr. Chairperson, the government has embarked on a policy of privatization. There appears to be no understanding on the side of the minister or the government as to what effects privatization can have and will have in a public health care system.
Not only do they not understand the ramifications or effect of that and are unwilling to deal with that issue, they have embarked on a privatization scheme in the home care field without any data, without any analysis, without any studies justifying their position. We have seen information come forward time and time again that suggests and in fact indicates strongly that virtually no organization, no group, whether they are a part of the government or whether they are not part of the government, agree with the government's plan to privatize.
Mr. Chairperson, we have tried and made suggestions to the government about helping to resolve this issue. We have said, while we disagree with the privatization initiative, put a moratorium on for a year, study the situation. We have offered names. We have offered names of former Conservative leaders.
Mr. Chairperson, even the minister, in all his rhetorical flourish, could not accuse someone like Sidney Spivak of being in bed with the union bosses or someone like Duff Roblin of being in bed with the union bosses.
We offered names for a commission, an independent review and study of this issue. Let them review the home care initiative, Mr. Chairperson. We have been met with a stony silence. No public hearings, no public input was made and allowed to happen to permit the public of Manitoba to have a say in this decision, so last week an independent group of citizens held hearings in the Legislature, and I dare suggest, and I have never said anything quite like this before in the Chamber, I actually believe that if the minister actually attended those hearings and actually heard some of those presentations, even the minister would have changed his mind.
If he had an opportunity to listen to their reasoned, to the passionate, to the analytical information that was put forward, then perhaps even the minister would have changed his mind. That is why we invited them to attend, but it seems that this is a government that is obstinate in its initiative and in its moves to privatize home care and is prepared to listen to no one, to simply, in its wrong-headed fashion, bull ahead and to put in place its private scheme despite what Manitobans say. Aside from the effect this has on democracy as we know it, it is bad politics and it is bad policy, Mr. Chairperson..
* (1610)
I had occasion again to speak to a constituent of mine whom I have mentioned before in the course of these Estimates, a very learned man, someone whose counsel I seek on occasion, and he has been forced into the hospital. He has been displaced from his family, and I mentioned to the minister previously that despite all of that he was supportive of the workers and against the government privatization scheme.
I spoke with him again this morning, and his health is deteriorating. His health is deteriorating, and he said to me this morning, do they not recognize that the continuity of care, that the orderlies that I have trained, make a significant difference in my health? Do they not recognize it will cost more when they bring in private companies, and nurses will do the duties that orderlies now perform on him, and it will cost the government more? Do they not recognize that, Mr. Chairperson?
I rarely bring personal matters of this kind to the Chamber. It has not been my practice, but this is an extraordinary situation. This is an extraordinarily bad government decision, and that is the reason that I bring forward my friend and constituent again and implore the minister to review government policy.
But, Mr. Chairperson, through the course of these Estimates, and we raised it in Question Period, the minister has started to provide us with some information, but with respect to home care he will not provide us with a list of private companies, he will not provide us with any tender documents, he will not provide us with any studies, if there are any outstanding studies that support the government position, and one would tend to believe that it is not that he is unwilling to provide those studies, it is just that they do not exist.
We are in a situation where people have tried to persuade the government, where every means at public disposal and of democracy have been utilized to try to attempt to get the government to listen, and I do not know what more can be done to get a government to listen. It would be entirely different if the government had a mandate to do what they are doing, but they do not.
After the last election, I acknowledged that the government had a mandate, but I stated then and I state now, do not misinterpret that mandate. Your mandate was not the course of action you are following in health care, and that has become very clear in all aspects of health care but, in particular, in the home care situation.
The minister talks about his We Care studies. There is no doubt that we need to provide for orderly discharge from hospitals, but the minister does not even recognize that that is not the majority of care that is provided in the home care system. The minister does not recognize the issue of continuity of care. How could you take workers that people have trained and worked with for some period of time, displace them with a contractual basis and then, perhaps when that contract is renewed, displace them with another contractual worker, not even considering the fact that the turnover rate for private companies is so dramatically high? We heard Evelyn Shapiro give us those statistics.
So, Mr. Chairperson, we are frankly disappointed, disgusted and completely angered, and trying to reflect public opinion as to what this government is doing in home care. It is a watershed in political developments in this province, and I daresay that this issue will be with us until the next provincial election. I have been following politics for over 30 years, and I have watched lots of events. I have watched governments come, and I have watched governments go, but I daresay this is clearly the beginning of the end of this government with this policy.
There is no doubt in my mind. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind. This wrong decision, this inability to be flexible on this decision, this inability to consult will be the downfall of this government. My only hope and prayer is that somehow we can get through to this government.
So, Mr. Chairperson, I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid),
THAT the Minister's Salary, line item 1.(a) of the Estimates for the Department of Health, be reduced by 40 percent, an amount which will be equivalent to the reduction in wages that will accompany the privatization of home care that will result in the deterioration of service to home care clients.
Motion presented.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The motion is in order.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, we in the Liberal caucus support the motion as has been presented from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). In fact, we, too, had a motion which we had developed, and as opposed to introducing that motion afterward, after this particular motion has ultimately been debated and voted upon, I think that we can, in essence, incorporate to a certain degree most of the sentiments that we have in what the member for Kildonan is proposing.
Of course, when the member for Kildonan talks about a 40 percent decrease in pay, the minister understands, no doubt, where it is that the 40 percent is coming from. The government's decision to privatize home care services is estimated--we are estimating to see a number of home care service providers currently receiving up to a 40 percent decrease in what they are making today.
So I do believe it is an appropriate message that is being sent, and that is how we interpret this, Mr. Chairperson, as a message. Our motion had dealt with reducing the minister's wage to what is being paid to someone, the average home care staff employee, over at We Care Home Health Services.
So we are not too far off in terms of--[interjection] Does he get a TV set? Well, that would be determined, I guess. We would possibly have a vote depending on what the minister has done a year later, but, in essence, the intent of both opposition parties on this particular issue is not that far off.
We have acknowledged right from the beginning that, yes, no system is perfect in Canada, and that includes the province of Manitoba in the sense that there is a need for change, and it is a responsibility of government to look at ways in which it can enhance different programs.
The change that we see here, Mr. Chairperson, is quite radical. It is a substantial change in direction that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is taking home care services and the manner by which they are being delivered. That change ultimately, we believe, is not in the long term or the short term in the best interests of Manitobans as a whole, in particular today's clients and future clients of this particular program.
* (1620)
Mr. Chairperson, the Liberal Party has tried to make itself very clear as to our position regarding the strike, and if the government feels that it has to move ahead on this issue, that it is major changes that are required, we have even suggested the way in which this government might attempt to make those changes. I asked the question today of the Minister of Health, what does this government have to lose by holding off for one year and in that year to look at the many other ideas and possible changes that could have a long-term, more positive impact on home care services.
Mr. Chairperson, we have yet to date, out of the hours that we have spent on health care, not had any concrete evidence to demonstrate that the privatization for profit is going to, in the long and short term, be of benefit to our clients. We have not seen any rationale that this government used in order to jump to the conclusion that we have to privatize.
Mr. Chairperson, the point that I made earlier today is that in the private sector there was a study that was done in B.C., and they said in the private, for-profit sector you had a very high rate of return, approximately 50 percent. Compared to nonprofit and unionized, that is very high. How can you argue that a high turnover, a 50 percent turnover on a yearly basis in this particular case out in B.C., is not going to have a negative impact on the quality of service? If you marginalize, and that is what this privatization for profit is going to do, it is going to marginalize the health care services in many different areas. As a result of that, you are going to see substantial rate reductions, and it is going to be very difficult for people, for Manitobans, for even current people that are making or providing those services, to be able to stay in that field or to stay in that occupation. This is a very honourable profession to be in, and this government has chosen in an attempt to make a number of--I should not say a number--very few people very rich. They are going to see that money, those profits created on the backs or on the salaries of the individuals that are providing the service. It is, indeed, most unfortunate.
That is why what we suggested is that the government, at the very least, when it puts out the tender, it sets in some sort of a salary structure. If you are going to stick to privatization for profit, you can at least ensure a certain amount of quality in part by ensuring, Mr. Chairperson, that there is some sort of a basic salary structure put into place. We have also suggested to the minister that special treatment should be given to nonprofit organizations. I went on for hours talking about, both inside the Chamber and outside this Chamber, the benefits of utilizing our community health clinics. This is something, and I question specifically the Minister of Health--the Minister of Health gives no indication whatsoever that he has investigated to any degree the benefits of expanding home care services--or expanding the role of our community health clinics to provide for a service of this nature. What do our community health clinics do today in terms of providing foot care programs along with a number of other prevention-type programs? What has this government done to enhance those community clinics?
This is an area that, if they were to look at, and they do not have to start from the word go, Mr. Chairperson, they can look at the province of Quebec and see how the province of Quebec is handling this particular issue of the community clinics and how the community clinics should provide a role in the province of Manitoba. So, yes, we believe, ultimately, that one of the ways in which you can ensure a standard of quality service is through a salary structure. We believe as a political party that preferential treatment has to and should be given to nonprofit organizations, whether it is the Grey Nuns, Nor'West Health, the Victorian Order of Nurses.
We make no bones, and we are not going to apologize for our position. Most importantly, we believe that this government should institute a 12-month moratorium. It has absolutely nothing to lose by doing that, and, ultimately, for the sake of our clients, Manitobans, health care workers, all interested people, it is in our best interest to act quickly, to institute that 12-month moratorium. If the minister were to do that and indicate that prior to an actual vote, we might even withdraw the motion.
Having said that, our intention is to support this particular motion as it has been read into the record. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I, too, would like to speak to the motion that was put forward and, I guess, discuss a few of the things brought forward by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in his statement in support of it. It seems odd to me that a member of a Liberal Party--we have a federal party in power in Canada that are dramatically reducing health transfer funding and suggesting that we have to look at ways of making things works, but yet there is still no desire or no necessary need for change.
I think that basically our health care system, as we see it today, is probably the most in dire need of change, and I think that the minister has dealt forthright and straightforward with these as far as the idea of change.
Just a couple of comments I would like to make as he talks about salary structures and setting up special tenders. In a way, he is really supporting privatization, but he is suggesting that it should be done in such a way that it would suit, perhaps, his ideals as opposed to the ideals of the general public. I think that when he suggests, what do we have to lose by putting a moratorium on it for a year, I would suggest that the $2 million a day that we spend in interest is something that we all have to consider as, how can we reduce that amount to make the savings necessary?
So, therefore, I would suggest that the motion is--I do not know if the term is “not in order,” but I certainly do not support any kind of a motion to that extent.
Mr. Chairperson: Is the House ready for the question?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I will be very brief. I regret that the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) felt that this was something he needed to do. I think he probably does it with a little bit of pain in his heart, because I do not think this is something that he enjoys doing. Certainly, every effort that I have made and that of my colleagues on this side of the House has been with the interests of the clients of our home care service in mind. I do not think the honourable member's resolution resolves anything or is in any way helpful. Thank you.
Voice Vote
Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: The Nays have it. The motion has been defeated.
Mr. Ashton: I request a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Formal Vote
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The question before the House is the motion from the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that the Minister's Salary, line item 1.(a) of the Estimates for the Department of Health, be reduced by 40 percent, an amount which will be equivalent to the reduction in wages that will accompany the privatization of home care that will result in the deterioration of the service to home care clients.
A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 24, Nays 27.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The motion is accordingly defeated.
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 and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday). Good night.