Home Care Program
Privatization--Study Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Last Thursday I tabled in this House a presentation made by Mr. David Martin, who is the provincial co-ordinator for the Manitoba League for Persons with Disabilities.
In his document he raised a number of concerns about the lack of consultation and the fact that there was not a consensus in terms of the government proceeding with the privatization initiative of the government. Mr. Martin goes on to talk about such a large and huge decision affecting so many people, and they were not even consulted.
I would like to know whether the Premier has had time to read the presentation of Mr. Martin, which I tabled for his attention last week, and whether he can respond with any study on the costs or quality of services on the initiative of the government to proceed with privatization.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and I were discussing the matter of home care services with the media--and, of course, the Minister of Labour and his officials with the union--and put down an offer for agreement that we hoped would bring an end to some of the threats that have been made in recent times: the concept and the offer of a status quo collective agreement for 12 months; contracting home care services to a maximum of only 25 percent and no change outside Winnipeg; employee and client assessment of the initiative. We asked that home care attendants be allowed to vote on this offer.
We also made an invitation to the union to put together its own bid and to assist in the development of a business plan which we felt was a reasonable approach, which the union immediately rejected.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my question dealt with the policy of government to proceed with the privatization of home care. My question dealt with a client and a credible spokesperson for many clients in this province, a person who has advised many different governments, many Premiers in the past, about the quality of health care and the improvements that have to be made in health care.
My question was to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), whether he had read the brief presented by Mr. Martin, and I am disappointed that the Premier would not respond.
Madam Speaker, you can understand why, after dealing with the emergency ward situation last fall, where we were quite worried about whether we were flying by the seat of our proverbial pants with the decisions being made and then being changed and then being changed again without any study at all, we would be concerned about whether the government has a study in their possession dealing with the costs and dealing with the quality of services.
You are making a decision that is affecting in financial terms well over $50 million. You are dealing with a decision that affects over 17,000 people and 3,000 working people in the system.
I would like to ask the Premier, can he table today for the benefit of all of us in this Chamber, for the benefit of all Manitobans, any study he has dealing with the costs and quality of services that leads the government to the privatization decision that they have made?
* (1345)
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, as I have pointed out to the honourable member previously, the change that is being addressed here is not an issue of privatization. A good part of the Home Care program is already privatized. The nursing service part of it in the city of Winnipeg is privatized. It is not by virtue of any tenders, but it is an untendered contract with the Victorian Order of Nurses.
So if the honourable member wants to talk about privatization, we can talk about privatization, but what we have is a monopoly with respect to nursing, with the VON in the city of Winnipeg, and other services are a government monopoly in the home care sector in the city of Winnipeg.
So I think the honourable members again, the terminology they use very often, unfortunately, is misleading to the public as we have seen in recent weeks.
Mr. Martin, a gentleman I respect and with whom I have had numerous consultations over the past two and a half years, I have suggested to him and I suggest to you that he and his organization made their decision about the initiative perhaps without knowing all the details of what was being put forward. They did not know, I suggest to you, that the change would be modest in nature and that it would also be the subject of a client and worker assessment of the initiative.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister, in criticizing Mr. Martin and his organization, would put the details before this Legislature and before the people of Manitoba.
I would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to order his Minister of Health to put the studies before the people of this province. Instead of blaming people for not knowing all the details, perhaps the government could put the details before all of us.
Madam Speaker, I would like to know from the government--and for the life of us we cannot understand why the government is proceeding with the profit privatization initiative in the health care field--I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that they signed a $140,000 contract with Connie Curran to study the status of home care in the province of Manitoba--this contract is less than two years old--I would like to ask the Premier, in the light of the lack of any other information, is the government making its decision on home care services on the basis of Connie Curran’s recommendation, and will the Premier today table the contract that the taxpayers have already paid for?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, there is no one consideration that leads to a particular policy initiative or change. We have had problems with our health care system generally and right across the country. I am not referring only to Manitoba. Certainly we had health care problems, big ones, when the New Democrats were in power in Manitoba. We have made some pretty significant improvements, but that has required the expenditure of an additional $500 million a year, more than the NDP ever spent and, of course, in terms of commitment to health spending in Manitoba, our government has shown that its commitment is at a higher level than that shown by the previous New Democratic--it has been called the Doer-Pawley administration, I believe, Madam Speaker.
The fact is, our government is indeed committed to a properly running health care system.
The honourable member gave his case away again in his question when he brought in that filthy word “profit,” Madam Speaker. That is all that is bothering honourable members opposite. If they really care about the clients of our home care system in this province, they will get together with their union friends and have a little chat with them and ask them to get off this course of withdrawing services from people who have Parkinson’s disease . Let honourable members opposite stand up for the people who have Alzheimer’s disease. Let them stand up for the people who have severe cases of arthritis, multiple sclerosis and other problems.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the issue is not the government’s attempt to blame everybody but themselves in this issue. In fact, the so-called new government offer to the union is no different than the minister’s letter of March 15 outlining what they were going to do in home care privatization. The issue is a government only wanting to privatize with no studies and no support from anyone in the field.
Madam Speaker, can the minister today indicate whether or not, or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicate, whether or not this government is backing off of its own cabinet submission signed by the minister that said they would be privatizing home care, that said they would be setting up a Crown corporation to administer the privatization of home care, that said there would be user fees on core services, in their own cabinet document?
Is the government backing off of this government document?
* (1350)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): One of the problems we have, Madam Speaker, is that honourable members either do not listen or cannot hear when they are told and when they are reminded and asked not to go around scaring elderly and vulnerable people in our province by telling them that they will have to pay user fees or that their services will be cut. We have been very clear about where we stand on those issues.
I am asking the honourable member, will he assist those in Manitoba who require home care attendant services because they have Alzheimer’s disease, because they have Parkinson’s disease, because they have multiple sclerosis, because they have severe arthritis?
Will the honourable member and his Leader get together with their union friends to get them to provide services to those people?
Privatization--Nursing Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my subsequent question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Health.
Is the Minister of Health prepared to state today that they will not be privatizing the largest portion, that is, the largest portion of home care services that is offered in Winnipeg, that is, the nursing service, and taking it away from the VON? Will they not be privatizing it for their for-profit friends?
Are they agreeing today that they will not privatize the nursing component of home care?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): All of the short-term nursing services are presently privatized. The Victorian Order of Nurses is the private nonprofit agency that is providing that service, so let honourable members maybe find a new word besides “privatize,” because privatize is exactly what goes on for all of the short-term and a good part of the long-term nursing services.
Honourable members cannot find these ideological words anymore. [interjection] It does not work. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to quickly complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable members’ hidebound version of the way things ought to be, Madam Speaker, that version does not work in the ’90s. The world is changing. There is a reality out there which honourable members, because they are in the opposition and do not have to take any responsibility for anything, can gleefully ignore. That is the way they proceed.
I, on the other hand, and my colleagues are responsible to the people of Manitoba and we will carry out our responsibilities.
Privatization
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, will the minister, who refused to comment on his own cabinet document that stated they were going to privatize 100 percent, who refused to answer the question with respect to nursing services in Winnipeg, do the right thing, prevent disharmony, prevent dislocation for patients, do the right thing for patients, do the right thing for the employees, do the right thing for the public of Manitoba and say today, no privatization in the province of Manitoba, that they will put it on hold, they will talk to the public before they move on this?
* (1355)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, let the record show that, by their silence on the issue, honourable members opposite today have confirmed that their backs are turned to people in Manitoba who require home care attendant service, people who require those services because they suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, from Parkinson’s disease, from multiple sclerosis, from severe arthritis and other serious conditions. They have turned their backs on those people, and that is very clear today.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne 417 is very clear: “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.”
Day in and day out, when we ask questions to the Minister of Health on home care, he refuses to deal with his own responsibility for this matter.
I would ask him to come to order, Madam Speaker, and for once answer the very serious questions we are asking on behalf of the people of Manitoba.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, it may be that the honourable member for Thompson, in the guise of raising a point of order, refers to the fact that perhaps in my last answer I did not refer to the fact that the contracting of home care services or allowing for competition in Winnipeg will only be in the order of 25 percent. There will not be any change outside Winnipeg--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed Beauchesne 417 cites that questions must not be lengthy, contain argument or debate and/or provoke debate.
Child Daycare
Subsidized Spaces
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, Manitobans know that an accessible, affordable, nonprofit, community-based child care system is important, especially for parents entering work or training or to stay in the job market or indeed to stay in school.
Last year in Estimates, the Minister of Family Services said that her department increased the number of child-care cases by 300, based on an evaluation and an appeal to centres to see whether there was a need for increased cases.
Can the Minister of Family Services confirm that the cap on subsidized cases was increased from 9,600 to 9,900 due to increased demand, as the minister said in Estimates on June 15, 1995?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because, yes, indeed, there were an additional 300 spaces added last year through the process of evaluating where in fact the need was. Although many of the subsidized spaces throughout the province remained unfilled, there was a need in specific centres for specific additional cases, and we provided that support.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a document, a briefing note, for this minister which shows exactly the opposite, that due to vacancies in the 9,600 cases, the minister allocated another additional 300 cases.
Why is the minister reducing the total number of subsidized daycare cases as a deliberate, budget policy decision when she knows that any so-called underutilization is due to her policy of increasing parent fees?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, again, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it does allow me to say again that there were many spaces within our formal child care system that were not being utilized, were not filled, and that was right throughout the width and the breadth of our province, but in specific instances there were certain child care centres that needed more spaces.
We added those spaces to those centres and left the rest of the spaces open to see what the year might present to us, but those spaces were not filled and as a result of that and as a result of our desire to work with the child care community and undertake a comprehensive review of our child care programming right throughout the province, we have frozen the spaces that are filled.
I want to indicate to all Manitobans, if in fact there is a need specifically for individual circumstances to be addressed, we will address them.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to table Treasury Board documents which prove that removing $4 million from the daycare budget was a deliberate decision to downsize the number of subsidized cases in child care.
What is the Minister of Family Services going to tell family daycare providers and parents who have lost subsidized cases and have children needing child care to enter work training or education? They are phoning us, they are telling us--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, again, I thank my honourable friend for that question because, indeed, if he is receiving calls that indicate there is a need for a space because there is a parent in training or in the workforce, I would suggest very strongly that rather than waiting to bring it to the Legislature through Question Period that those individuals, he recommend that they call our department directly, because in fact if there is a need we will attempt to address that need.
Human Rights Commission
Funding Reduction
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
A few sittings ago we received the Annual Report for the Manitoba Human Rights Commission for the year 1994, which reports a 34 percent increase from the previous year in the commission’s education projects because, and I quote, policy adopted by the commission continued to direct staff to give priority to activities which would tend to prevent discrimination. Then it goes on to talk about programs regarding discrimination against aboriginal peoples and business education respecting sexual harassment.
My question to the First Minister is, would he explain, especially to Manitoba’s women, aboriginal peoples and minorities--indeed, it is Holocaust Awareness Week--why the government targeted the Human Rights Commission for a cut of 6 percent while he takes an increase of 21 percent?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as the member knows, throughout this process very difficult decisions had to be made in all areas. However, the member I am sure will realize that what was preserved was the Human Rights commissioners, those people who actually deal with the issues of human rights complaints. We believe that was a very important area to preserve.
Mr. Mackintosh: The question then to the minister: A 6 percent cut is one thing, but can the minister explain why the government specified, indeed targeted commission staff devoted to education for the cut, indeed gutting the education function of the commission?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member often phrases his questions in a way that I think perhaps he does not intend to.
Let me just clarify for the member, it is the educational area in which, yes, there has been a reduction. However, in the area of Human Rights commissioners, in the area of dealing with complaints that would go through the Human Rights Commission, a very important area, this government has in fact maintained its commitment, Madam Speaker.
* (1400)
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain, with investigation staff already backlogged with complaints, how the commission can now effectively develop and promote educational programs as it is required to do by law under the Human Rights code?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, as the member knows, the Human Rights Commission has been dealing in fact very effectively with the cases which come forward which require investigation. He continues to refer to issues of backlog, but he has been consistently wrong when he has spoken about courts. We believe that maintaining the number of Human Rights commissioners, there are still officers to provide the investigation, that we will continue to provide this very important service to Manitobans. That is an area this government has made sure to preserve.
Home Care Program
Labour Dispute
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The Minister of Health often refers to the client and the patient, and what we find today, once again, is that the health and well-being of Manitobans is being put at risk. We saw this last fall when the emergency services strikes took place and the lack of action from this particular government. Tomorrow we, in all likelihood, will see again another strike that is going to threaten that health and well-being.
My question to the Minister of Health is, the reason for this strike is because of this government’s actions towards privatization. What of any significance is this Minister of Health going to do between now and tomorrow to avert this strike from taking place? Does he have any--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, my colleague the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) can tell the honourable member about--sorry. [interjection] The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) should not interrupt the honourable member for Inkster when he is trying to get an important issue addressed. The member for Thompson from his seat is taking up all my time and it is a very important question the member for Inkster has asked. So if the honourable member for Thompson would kindly allow me to do so, I would like to answer the honourable member for Inkster’s question.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am sitting tentatively waiting for a response on behalf of thousands of clients who are out there. I would appreciate if the Minister of Health would cut back on some of the rhetoric and just indicate an answer.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to quickly provide a response.
Mr. McCrae: Well, the problem was, Madam Speaker, I could not hear myself think with the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) nattering away over there from his seat and showing no respect whatever for the honourable member for Inkster and his question.
Anyway, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has been working to attempt to resolve the issues. We have put an invitation to the union to come into the ’90s, join the rest of the world and get involved by putting in a bid yourselves. You claim to offer competitive and quality services. Well, we would invite you, in fact, we would assist the union in getting involved in that way.
But I will ask the honourable member for Inkster the same question as I asked the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and that is, will he stand up for people who have Alzheimer’s disease, people who have Parkinson’s disease--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable Minister of Health that when the Speaker is on her feet attempting to maintain order that he please take his seat.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the questions, from my understanding of Beauchesne should be answered as briefly as possible and they should not incite debate. In the answer he asks a question. When we cannot respond with an answer, it incites debate. It is not appropriate for the minister to ask a question in his answer.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for The Maples indeed does have a point of order. I would remind the honourable Minister of Health--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health is baiting all members of the opposition--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I recognize that sensitivities and emotions are running high today, but I would ask for the co-operation of all honourable members in observing our rules.
Privatization--Tender Process
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, following the minister's response, let me then ask, is the minister prepared to take the next step and allow for nurses and organizations such as the Victorian Order of Nurses the opportunity to have preferential treatment in the bidding process. [interjection] Very good. Now do you understand the word?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I think the honourable member and I discussed this last week. The honourable member is not suggesting, is he, that in a bidding process that there be some kind of preferential treatment? When tenders are let out you put it in your tender that so and so and so and so are going to get special treatment. Is that what the honourable member is asking? I am not sure if I heard him right, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would suggest the Minister of Health listen very closely, and the question quite simply is, is the Minister of Health prepared to give preferential treatment for nonprofit organizations that want to be able to provide home care services for our seniors and other individuals who require this service in order to have a way of life that is reasonable in the communities? Is the Minister of Health prepared to--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. McCrae: So now, Madam Speaker, the honourable member wants to deal in a preferential way with people who will not put in an essential services agreement the fact that people with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and other serious disabilities and conditions--he wants to give special treatment to people who would treat our citizens that way. Not me, Madam Speaker.
* (1410)
Brandon General Hospital
Speech Language Program
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Health as well.
As he knows, as I know, this matter has been discussed in the Westman area, but many constituents, including many teachers, continue to express their concern about the plans of the Brandon General Hospital to eliminate the Department of Communication Disorders, which will result in the discontinuation of speech and language services for children and adults in the area. The elimination of this program, of course, results from the, I believe it is a $2.2-million cut of the BGH budget by the minister for this year.
Will the minister in this House now officially ensure the continuation of the speech language program at the Brandon General Hospital?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, my concern is that there be a speech language program. For me, it is consistent with health reform, in some circumstances that services not be delivered behind the brick and stone walls of a hospital building.
There is no problem in my mind with the proposal to remove that service from Brandon General as long as the service is provided somewhere else where it is accessible and convenient for the people of Brandon and southwestern Manitoba, but to this point no decision has been confirmed by the Department of Health that this is something that they ought to do, so that is where we are at. I do not want the honourable member--oh, he can make up his own mind, but it seems to me that it is not necessarily where a service is delivered in a community as long as it is delivered in a place that is accessible to those people who need it.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for the answer.
I would like to ask him by way of supplementary then, if it should happen that Brandon General Hospital discontinues this service, is his department or some other department of government prepared to fund another program that would provide the necessary services of speech therapy for both adults and children?
Mr. McCrae: Well, the only thing I will say today, until something more definitive comes along with respect to this matter, is that I would not want to see these services withdrawn or removed from the people who need them. That is why it is taking so long to get a decision about it as to what will be the future of that type of service in the Brandon area. So when we know, the honourable member will know.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, throughout Question Period we are hearing reference to the clients of home care, those who have Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, and the minister, in his more than decade-long vendetta against labour, seems to be forgetting one thing, and that is the interests of the clients.
I would like to ask the minister a very simple question, why the Minister of Health has never once sought the support nor gained the support for any kind of privatization, why he continues to push ahead with his ideologically vendetta-driven program to privatize home care when the clients of home care do not want to see it privatized.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, honourable members opposite can choose, day in and day out, to the exclusion of all other priorities, to fight the battles of their union boss friends, both here and outside and everywhere in the province. They can do that all they want, and they will pay a price for that when they turn their backs on ordinary Manitobans.
Privatization--Consultations
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): A supplementary, Madam Speaker.
What is so difficult for this minister to do in asking the question to the clients, to the patients with Alzheimer’s, with Parkinson’s, with multiple sclerosis, he keeps referring to? Why will he not ask them what they think? Is it because he knows they want to maintain a publicly run home care system?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The one thing about honourable members opposite that is consistent is their slavish adherence to the principals that are brought forward by their friends in the union movement. You know, it has been referred to by Professor Allen Mills as an organic fusion that exists between the union bosses and honourable members opposite, and it is very evident here today.
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism
Reorganization
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, recently the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism issued an O/C creating an SOA for EITC. A new ADM is being sought for I, T and T and several senior managers have been reassigned or have left. Can the Minister of Industry, Trade and--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Sale: If government members opposite do not know what an SOA is, I guess we have a problem.
Madam Speaker: Would the honourable member for Crescentwood completely put his question.
Mr. Sale: Can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism tell the House why all these changes are being made all of a sudden?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Sale: Did the minister receive any external advice on dealing with the sorry state of his department?
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise and, yes, I have.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, can the minister tell the House what firm provided the advice and what was the cost to the department?
Mr. Downey: Yes, Madam Speaker, Price Waterhouse, $70,000.
Department of Highways and Transportation
Engineering Layoffs
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways.
During the last session, this minister was asked about the status of Engineering Aides 2 in this province. These approximately 150 full-time employees were required to take mandatory layoffs for the first time in their history. At that time, the minister claimed it was due only to early completion of construction projects. The minister failed to answer any questions about job security for these workers, and now we get an inkling of why that is so.
Can the minister inform the House why Engineering Aides 2 were offered severance packages in September of 1995 but not informed that their job would go from full time to seasonal work until March 12, 1996?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the Department of Highways’ mission is to build roads, and there is a tremendous demand for that in the province of Manitoba.
On the other hand, where there is work, we can hire people. Where there is not work, it is difficult to say, but we have to have the flexibility to lay the people off. Last summer we had a very good season in terms of the weather, being able to accomplish a lot of projects and spend the budget, in fact slightly overspend the budget. The principle is, when there is work, people can be employed; when there is not work, it is difficult to do it.
I would like to also remind the member that we have recalled those people. In Saskatchewan and British Columbia they have laid off over 200 people in the Department of Highways in both provinces. We have chosen not to do that.
* (1420)
Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the same minister is, can the minister explain why the Department of Highways did not file a 1996 work reduction plan with UIC? Because the aides who opted for severance were told by directors that they would be eligible for UIC when severance ran out and now find that they are not eligible.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member asks a very technical question. I am sure we will be into Estimates someday and he will have an opportunity to get the detail from the management in the department.
Mr. Jennissen: Can the same minister explain why, since the privatization of roadside highway mowing in 1989, the wildlife-vehicle collisions have increased from 2,000 annually to 6,000, a threefold increase?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I think it is fairly straightforward. There is a tremendous expansion, particularly in the deer herd, in fact basically all wildlife, but particularly the deer herd. The expansion is very evident to those people who travel rural Manitoba. That is the reason why there are more incidents of accidents.
Regional Health Boards
Appointments
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of Health knows there are two sexes and the health care of each varies. Furthermore, common sense and respectful process suggests that the best way to protect the health care needs of each is to hear from stakeholders and advocates, both women and men.
It is in this context that I ask the Minister of Health to confirm or deny whether the appointed chairs of his regional health boards, nine out 10, and possibly 10 out of 10, are men.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member may know of the process that led to the selection of the board members. As I have acknowledged in the past, it would have been better, in my view, had we been able to appoint more women, both as chairs and as members. We also, though, had to review all of the circumstances that were part of that process, one of them being the nominations that came in, the number of nominations of men and the number of nominations of women. We also had to look at other factors, but I am not going to tell the honourable member that I am pleased with that set of circumstances as she has laid out.
Madam Speaker, we had the names of people before us who were nominated by facilities, organizations and fellow citizens, and decisions were made based ultimately on the best people for the jobs.
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the Minister of Health, we are not pleased with his appointments either.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne was recognized for a supplementary question. Would she please pose her question.
Ms. McGifford: Will the minister immediately release and table in this House the names of the regional board members in order that he can assure us somewhat and assure women, aboriginal people and other groups that their health care needs will be fully represented and recognized?
Mr. McCrae: I share the goals laid out by the honourable member in her question.
Madam Speaker, we are working on the last round of appointments, and we are trying to address those shortfalls that existed at the end of the first round of appointments. I hope that we can address them all. I do not know if we can address them all, but I will certainly try my best to ensure that all the appropriate people in Manitoba get the representation that they should have.
Woman Representation
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Can the minister tell Manitoba women who will advocate for the following: breast cancer and other female cancers, gynecology and obstetrics, reproductive technology, eating disorders? I am only citing a few of women’s special health needs.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Those matters are indeed important. That is why we are pleased to have been the government that brought in the province-wide breast screening program located at Misericordia General Hospital and at Brandon General Hospital with future further development in Thompson for our breast screening program.
The other initiatives in women’s health in my department have been supported by this government. I am pleased about those things too, and I think the honourable member would be too. Indeed, throughout Manitoba we know that there are women’s health issues that are real and require appropriate attention from the new regional governing authorities in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
I am not certain why three people are standing simultaneously, but I would remind all honourable members that we are still on Routine Proceedings. It is Members’ Statements.
Point of Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, just to seek clarification, my intentions are to introduce a matter of urgent public importance. Would this be the opportune time to do it or do we wait till after Members’ Statements?
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, it is definitely not the appropriate time at this point in the Routine Proceedings. As soon as I start Orders of the Day, it is very much in order to start and move a MUPI.