(Concurrent Sections)
HEALTH
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Health.
When the committee last sat it had been considering item 1.(b)(1) on page 71 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? The honourable member for Kildonan, I believe, though, in recognizing the honourable member, he would remember that he had asked a question and the minister was going to answer it when we last left the committee.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Chairperson, just for clarification, as I understand it, I had just wound up asking the minister whether he would table his studies and documentation justifying and indicating his recommendation to privatize the home care services.
* (1520)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Yes, I have been sharing a lot of information with my honourable colleague, and I intend to continue to do that, Mr. Chairman.
We have the view today made known to the Winnipeg Sun, the Winnipeg Free Press and CJOB the point of view of a unionized caregiver with the Home Care program. I discussed this briefly in Question Period earlier on, and I think I would like to share this in its entirety with honourable members.
The letter is dated April 16, 1996, and it is addressed To Whom This May Concern. It is from a home care worker by the name of Kelly Paige--P-a-i-g-e. I expect that both responsible newspapers in the city will have this printed in its entirety promptly, as well, but I would like honourable members to have it on the record of this committee.
To Whom This May Concern, This is a copy of a letter that I have sent to the Winnipeg Sun and CJOB--
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: A point of order, Mr. Chairperson, just for purposes of clarification, I am wondering if the Chair might give me some advice or some direction in this regard. I believe I asked the minister a question about his studies, a very specific question about the government privatization of home care, and asked the minister to table or to provide these documents to members of the committee with respect to the privatization of home care. While I appreciate the minister does not have to answer the question, I am not sure if the minister can go off in tangent and simply read into the record documentation that have no relevance whatsoever to the question.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am ruling that the honourable member does not have a point of order, and I will explain why.
When we started these Estimates, we said there would be a wide-ranging scope of questions and answers, and it has done just that. The member is asking a question, and the member for Kildonan asked a question. The preamble takes him approximately five to 10 minutes of questions, comments and in some--no, I guess not answers, but the questions are put to the minister. Now we are asking for one specific question. Those questions were put yesterday. So, indeed, I am letting the minister answer it in his way today, and I would ask that if we want a particular question answered, put that question and not five others.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, are you ruling that if I ask a specific question on a specific point, the specific question and the specific point should and must be addressed by the minister? Because that is how I hear your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: That is not what I said.
The ruling within Beauchesne--order, please, while I get this. To further elaborate, questions and answers put in committee can indeed be far-ranging, but it has to be relevant to the Estimates at hand, and the minister may answer that question however he chooses, just as the members have the right to ask that question however they choose.
Mr. McCrae: I will do my best not to try to bully the honourable member for Kildonan and tell him what questions to ask and how to ask them, and I would appreciate reciprocal courtesy.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: I will begin the letter again from Kelly Paige. It says: To whom this may concern. This is a copy of a letter that I have sent to the Winnipeg Sun and CJOB. I have previously sent one to the Free Press which was not published. I am presently still an MGEU member who voted no to strike action. I am disgusted with the union and members who chose to walk out on thousands of sick and disabled seniors who need them.
I will pause there briefly.
Mr. Chairman, earlier today, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) made it clear where he and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party stand when he took great exception to anyone who would actually report to work and provide service to needy and vulnerable Manitobans.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I believe you just referred to the question of relevance.
I am wondering what the minister’s comments in the House or reference to a comment of another honourable member in the House have any relevance whatsoever to either the question that was posed by myself or in fact the attempted answer and response by the minster, because surely it is obvious that the minister’s comments completely are outside the scope of relevance. Comments of other members in the House do not bear any relevance whatsoever to the question posed by either this member or by the minister’s initial response.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I want to remind members that their remarks should be kept relevant to the matter before the committee.
I will read for the benefit of the committee--[interjection] No, I will not go into that part; it is not necessary to go into that part. I would ask all members to keep their remarks relevant to the matter at hand. I would also like to point out that in the Estimates book, we have started out on 1.(b) (1) on page 71. It leaves it quite wide open for questions and answers.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairperson, the honourable member’s repeated interruptions to raise technical and legalistic type arguments with respect to what I am trying to say here today remind me of the story of a senior lawyer telling the younger lawyer how to proceed in court.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: A point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I would ask you to call the minister to order. Not only is he challenging your ruling by commenting on the ruling, but he is again totally irrelevant to the point at hand. I wish the minister would address the very serious issues that we are posing on behalf of the public.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I do rule that the honourable member for Kildonan does have a point of order and would ask the minister to be relevant in his answers or to keep his answers relevant. Thank you.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: With regard, Mr. Chairman, to the point raised by the honourable member, I am reminded of the story of the senior lawyer telling--this is in respect to the honourable member’s question and if the honourable member would be courteous enough to hear me out, as they say in court, I will try to link it up. The senior lawyer said to the junior lawyer, well, when you are before the judge and the jury and you do not have much in the way of evidence, pound the law, and when you do not have the law really working for you, pound the evidence, and when you have neither law nor evidence, pound the desk. I think maybe the honourable member is either pounding the law books or pounding the desks today because he certainly does not have much else. I will continue the letter I was reading, but I was making a comment, and this is very relevant because the honourable member is asking me questions about home care.
The point that was raised today by the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) made the position of the New Democrats clearer than ever if it was ever necessary to be clearer, because their activities with their friends in the union movement are well known and they are not even red faced about it, Mr. Chairperson. The position of the member for Transcona enunciated on behalf of his colleagues in the New Democratic Party is that they object to services being provided to vulnerable people in Manitoba. They absolutely object to people with multiple sclerosis, for example, mentioned earlier today by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that they should actually get services during a labour dispute when the precious rights of union bosses have to rule supreme in this province and make victims out of the clients of our home care system. I could not disagree more, but I think it is important and very relevant that it be very clearly on the record the position that the NDP takes in this matter. They do not even want me to read into the record a letter written by one of the union members. Now, I do not quite understand. I guess if you are a union member who disagrees with the union boss, you are supposed to be intimidated, you are not supposed to be heard.
Where is the democracy in the union movement and where is the democracy in the NDP? They will go to the people and tell them that we are here to represent the interests of the people. Yet, every time there is a competition between the rights of the people and the rights of their union boss friends, their union boss friends prevail every single time. It is sad to watch. It is indeed disgusting. I agree with Kelly Paige, and it speaks volumes about exactly where the New Democrats are coming from and where they would like to take us.
* (1530)
The letter continues: I called your office last week to continue working through the strike and was helped and told what to do, but, thanks to my supervisor, who is pro union, that was not possible. She will give me some assignments, no doubt the union-approved ones with palliative care, but not the regular run. I do in our block project where I can care for several people instead of one. I do not want to work for the union or follow their directions. I want to work with all our clients that they have walked out on. I have been very tactfully threatened by my supervisor with regard to my job and with work after the strike. She has suggested I find work in a hospital or somewhere.
That part of the letter, Mr. Chairman, is handwritten. The next part of it is typewritten. It is from Kelly Paige, and it is to the Winnipeg Sun news desk.
I have been fortunate enough to have been a continuing student in health care over a period of time and have always maintained employment at the same time. In some of the courses I took and lectures I attended, we were aware that our health care system, as is, was going to have to change in the future in order to be able to continue servicing people. However, this is not what I want to elaborate on, so I will get to the point of my letter.
I am fed up with the media’s coverage and advertisements on the MGEU strike over contracting out health care services by Jim McCrae. All the advertisements clearly state that the government home care workers are the only people qualified for the job of caregivers to the thousands of sick and disabled clients out there and that staff from private companies are untrained, unqualified and incompetent as caregivers. The staff from these private companies are being humiliated daily because of the union’s strategy plans to acquire public backing and support. First of all, if you watch the advertisements these private companies are running or talk to them, you will find out that all but one of these private companies require trained, qualified, licensed, certified staff with minimum Grade 12. They are also reputable companies that have been established for a long time.
I am an MGEU member who voted no to strike action. Why? First of all, Jim McCrae is taking responsibility for his actions. Now, the union and its members that choose to strike should take responsibility for their actions instead of trying to tell us that this is also Jim McCrae's fault. You do not turn your back and walk out on thousands of sick and disabled clients. You just do not do it and then turn around and blame someone else for it.
There is a line you draw, an unwritten rule for humanitarian reasons, because nothing you can say justifies what you have been doing to these clients. Nothing you can say justifies what you have been doing to these clients. A job I can get anywhere, but my principles and standards along with the morals that I have acquired through my life do not belong to the union to use for their sham they are trying to pull off on the public. They are good. I will give them that, but I am hoping that the public, especially the seniors, start to realize that there is something wrong with this picture.
If you have what it takes to be able to walk out on all your clients that you are saying so desperately need you, you do not turn around and in the same breath tell them that you are doing it because Jim McCrae made you or that you are mad at the government or there is no other alternative and then expect the public to buy that garbage. Please do not start with your slogan of we care about the quality of care our clients will receive from private companies if the government contracts out home care. I have sat at your union meeting when you found out home care was planning on being privatized. I sat with staff who were predicting deaths of clients in the event of a walkout. I talked continually to union reps and volunteers who phoned continually leading up to the strike, and I am saying to you, this strike has nothing to do with privatization or the quality of care clients will receive as a result of privatization.
This strike is about wages, benefits and jobs and that is all. The union is using all of these seniors as pawns in their game with the government to keep from losing their jobs. I wonder if the public knows that the government home care system uses untrained, unqualified, staff as home care attendants for our clients. Our head office at 189 Evanson Street has in the past and has presently held one-week courses, three hours a day, to train people as HCAs and then put them out to care and work with their clients. Sure, there have been some clients who have complained about a worker they might have been sent from one of the private companies, but I can assure you that there are many, many clients who have complained more about the government home care workers they are sent.
* (1540)
I have heard these complaints from clients. I have been called in to replace them, and I have watched other government employees complain about them also. In the time that I have been employed with our provincial government Home Care program, I have been double booked with clients involved in mixups from the office and seen clients forgotten about completely. None of this was done deliberately, nor was the government’s fault. What it all boils down to is that there is good staff and bad staff in every health care facility in Canada. Some places are better screened for staff than others.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, can the minister table any studies or reports recommending the privatization of home care?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I will refer at length to a report commissioned by the New Democratic Party that points to the need for improvements which it is clear can be brought about by the kind of flexibility that can be brought about through the introduction of competition.
The honourable member is not talking about privatization. We already have privatization. The private nonprofit organization Victorian Order of Nurses has been handling the nursing function in the Home Care program for many years, the program the honourable member--
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, when I asked for a ruling and clarification several minutes ago, we indicated that the minister ought to be answering specific questions within the specific questions as posed.
I had posed a very specific question about tabling reports with respect to the privatization of home care, and as is usual the minister is off on a tangent that is not relevant to the specific question or even closely relevant to the question that was asked.
Now, Mr. Chairperson, I specifically asked that question because in your previous ruling you had talked about the breadth of questions. So I specifically asked a specific question asking the minister for a specific answer, and I ask you to call him to order and try to deal with the question as posed.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I believe the member for Kildonan asked if the minister could table any studies that would indicate why the government should look at privatization. The minister responded, what we are looking at is not privatization but rather flexibility and competition, and, indeed, he did have a study that showed why we needed to move in that direction because of flaws in the current system. He was beginning to quote from that study, which happened to be commissioned by the NDP and recommended user fees, when the member for Kildonan said he did not want to hear the answer to the very question he put.
I submit he does not have a point of order but rather was trying to prevent relevant information from being put on the record.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. To try to make it a little bit clearer for the member for Kildonan--[interjection] Order, please. I will take your point of order as soon as I am finished.
I have asked all members to try to keep their questions and answers relevant to the matters at hand. I have also stipulated and stated right from the beginning of these Estimates that, in fact, this particular area that we are discussing now is far-ranging. The member for Kildonan can ask the question that he chooses, and I said that the minister has the right to answer that question in the way he chooses. Once we proceed further on in the Estimates, in the next part, if you will, I will then ask the members to be more relevant in their answers and the questions, but at this point, the minister is not out of order.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member and his colleagues support a movement which bullies and intimidates ordinary people. Well, I will not let the honourable member for Kildonan bully and intimidate me. I am here to represent the people of Manitoba. I am here to represent the interests of the clients of the Home Care program, and I will not let the member for Kildonan and his union friends bully and intimidate me. They can do that to ordinary working people and scare people who are clients of the home care system, if that is what they think will help them achieve their ends, but I will not sit here and allow the member for Kildonan and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party bully and intimidate me.
I will continue reading the letter that has been brought to my attention, written by Kelly Paige to the Winnipeg Sun, which I am sure will be printed in tomorrow’s edition in its entirety, as follows:
I have heard people say that Jim McCrae is just lining the pockets of the private companies with privatization while the taxpayers have to pay for it. What about the phenomenal amount of taxes you are paying now for a health care system that is set up and structured to allow for horrendous abuse by every level of employee? You do not think it is being done? You are paying more taxes now than you ever will by having a private company care for our clients.
I had a union rep who worked with us as an HCA in the block project we do. She is sitting alongside Peter Olfert on the union panel right now. I was told by her to bill for full time allowed even if it is not required because it will ruin it for everyone else. Another time, I received a page from her on my pager telling me that someone was cancelling, but it was not going through the office so to still bill for it and get paid. We get generous time for safety checks, bathroom calls, baths, et cetera, that do not require anywhere near the time we are allowed, but I was told to bill for it anyway.
This is the kind of stuff that members of the New Democratic Party want to have us preserve.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am having trouble hearing the honourable minister because of a number of members at this committee table, and I would ask that we maybe move out into the hallway or over into the seats over here, so that we can carry on with the Estimates.
Mr. McCrae: I will read this last one again because I think it is important to emphasize that this is the sort of thing that the NDP wants to preserve, because you see yesterday the member for Kildonan said, go back to the system we had in the first place. He wants to see this sort of thing continuing.
We get generous time for safety checks, bathroom calls, baths, et cetera, that do not require anywhere near the time we are allowed, but I was told to bill for it anyway.
This was brought to mysupervisor’s attention. Nothing was ever done about it, to my knowledge. We have clients who no longer require the amount of care or time originally allotted them that are not being reassessed. Why? Well, one reason is that this keeps all of us casual, classified employees employed full time right from HSWs to supervisors and case co-ordinators while you as taxpayers pay for it. This is what the members of the New Democratic Party stand for, Mr. Chairman, and they will fight and fight and fight.
(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
You know, when I think about it from the client’s point of view, I think the New Democrats would rather fight than win, because here we are looking at an opportunity to make improvements in a program that is so important to thousands of our fellow Manitobans and they want to stand in the way of it; in fact, they want to stop it. In fact, in the process they would like it if people received no service and, I guess, by extension, see their conditions deteriorate or perhaps worsen. That is what the NDP stands for. They are so firm in their principles that they will use elderly Manitobans and disabled Manitobans as pawns. They will not let their interests get in the way of their relationship that has been described as organic fusion with their union boss friends.
My honourable member says I know about relationships. The honourable member for Kildonan has ample opportunity to counsel his friends in the union movement to put a stop to this foolishness. He has done nothing. In fact, he has been actively engaged in trying to deny clients service. So let him not tell me too many things about relationships.
The letter continues: There are hundreds of us, home care direct-service workers who want to work and are not intimidated by the threats--
* (1550)
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: The minister indicated that members of the Legislature were actively engaged in trying to deny service to home care clients. I wonder if imputing that kind of motive is in fact a parliamentary statement and, if it is not, I would ask the minister to withdraw that.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The minister would like to speak to the point of order.
Mr. McCrae: On the point of order, I do not wish to impute any motives that are not there, but what else am I supposed to conclude when I heard not a peep from the New Democratic Party when the union decided to set a strike date before discussions even began. I did not hear a peep from the members of the New Democratic Party when the union would not agree to provide essential services to people with Parkinson’s disease, people with multiple sclerosis, people with Alzheimer’s disease, people with serious cases of arthritis, people who need home care services. I did not hear a peep from the New Democrats. So I can only conclude what I can conclude from that sort of thing, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): I will put a rule on the first point of order first. The member for Kildonan does not have a point of order. To the second point of order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I will withdraw that second point of order, Mr. Chairperson.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Thank you. The minister, to continue, please.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, there are hundreds of us home care direct-service workers who want to work and are not intimidated by the threats and intimidation tactics of a corrupt system organized by these union bosses and inside staff in professional positions that are working together to further confuse the emergency plans trying to be set up.
Mrs. McIntosh: Just for clarification, is the Minister of Health now beginning to read again from Kelly’s--[interjection]I am sorry, the woman there speaking, I cannot remember her name, but I wish she would not. Is the Minister of Health now quoting again from Kelly’s letter to the Sun or whomever she wrote it to? I want to know if those are your words or hers that are coming through.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The honourable minister, please, for clarification on that.
Mr. McCrae: I thank the honourable Minister of Education and Training for wanting to get that clarified because indeed these are not my words, although many of them, it is easy for me to adopt. I know that while the honourable Minister of Education and Training was trying to get that important clarification, the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) felt that she would like to get involved in the discussion, and I remind the honourable member for Osborne that it might do her good to listen to what this particular union member has to say about this matter. This is a card-carrying person into whose pockets the union has its hands to take her money on a regular basis, and this is the way the union represents the interests of Kelly Paige who simply, maybe--I assume Kelly Paige is a woman, but I do not know that. I do know that the union has its hands in her pockets taking money out, and the union movement provides all kinds of dollars to New Democrats across this country. I think that this person is entitled to be heard. If the honourable member for Osborne does not think that Kelly Paige has a legitimate view to be made available to members of this committee, then let her say that. If she thinks there is something wrong with Kelly Paige wanting to provide services to people who need those services, let the honourable member for Osborne say that. The honourable member for Osborne only speaks with the microphone turned off. She will not put her views on the record. That is unfortunate.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, with reference to the Chairperson’s recent ruling on relevance, I wonder what possible relevance the minister’s constant attack on members has to do with the answering of the question whatsoever. I know the minister likes to bully, but I think that he ought to answer the question as put.
On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, at the risk of some repetition, I am like Kelly Paige, I guess, because I refuse to be threatened and intimidated by members of the New Democratic Party who, by organic fusion, are joined to the union movement in this province. I refuse to be intimidated by the tactics of the member for Kildonan who decides to pound the law books every time he turns on the microphone because he does not have anything else to pound. They can object all they like. They will hear in this committee room the views of ordinary working Manitobans who simply want to provide services to vulnerable Manitobans. If they do not want to hear it, they can close their ears, but they will not stop me from putting on the record the views of ordinary Manitobans whom I am here to represent.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. On the point of order, I would ask all members, again, to keep the questions and answers as relevant as possible. The minister now has about thirty seconds left to finish his answer.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: It is a downright shame that time does not permit me, at least at this point, to complete putting the views of Kelly Paige on the record of this committee, but I want Kelly Paige and the clients of home care to know that there are people in this Legislature who do care about them and who care about their interests.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister was unable to table any documents or studies supporting the government’s move to privatize, and one could only conclude, therefore, that there are no documents or studies to privatize, and one can therefore conclude--
Point of Order
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I maybe misheard part of the dialogue, but I thought I distinctly heard the Minister of Health, when asked if there was any study that would verify or justify the actions of the government, I distinctly heard him refer to a 1987 report, a study commissioned by the NDP which amongst other things recommended user fees. I distinctly heard him say that he made reference to that study. So when the member for Kildonan says--[interjection] He did. He has a point of order on something that did not happen.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: I think it is fairly clear that the member has no point of order, Mr. Chairperson, with respect to--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Kildonan, I will make the ruling--[interjection] Order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: --and I am making that argument on the basis that it is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education does not have a point of order; it is a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Kildonan, to finish his question.
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if the minister, who is so quick to read a letter into the record and who has failed to answer questions in this committee now into the second day, can outline for us specifically what the government plans are in the short term and the long term with respect to the redirection of home care first brought to public attention by the release of the Treasury Board document dated September 16, 1995.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, on February 3, 1995, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press--I know the honourable member reads newspapers. If he reads that, he will get a hint of the direction that we are going to be going and have been going since.
By the way, he has asked for studies that support the kinds of things we are doing. The honourable member does not need to ask. He was there at Seven Oaks Hospital the day before. That was February 2, 1995. He was there the day before at Seven Oaks Hospital to very, very carefully and grudgingly give support and compliment the Seven Oaks Hospital and We Care Home Health Services, who were the participants in that particular project, and there was a report and I know he has seen that. So you know the honourable member is asking for stuff over and over again that he has already got. I mean I guess he does.
* (1600)
Did he not read it? I think he did. You know, he has got to do his job for his union-boss friends and he has got to keep asking questions, so he will just keep doing that, but that report is available, and as the honourable member has seen it, surely I do not need to make it available to him again. It was made available to him on February 2, 1995, and, if I recall correctly, Mr. Chairman, that was before the last provincial election, and it was front-page news. It was no secret to anybody where I stood, and in those days the honourable member was talking about We Care in some sinister sort of circumstances that give rise to the participation of a private--
Mrs. McIntosh: An award-winning business. I was there when they got their award--
Mr. McCrae: That is right. My honourable colleague and friend, the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), reminds me that particular company was given a national award. One of the principals of that company, Bev McMaster, was named Businessperson of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce in Brandon. This particular person was also named by the YWCA in Brandon as a Woman of Distinction for her contributions to business and to health, but because this person is from my constituency, of course, that really puts some sinister ideas into the mind of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
I suppose, if a company were to enjoy some success in Kildonan, who would be the first one to be on those coattails in Kildonan? It would be the honourable member. It says a little bit about the honourable member, but I guess it would not be parliamentary to say just exactly what.
Mr.Chairman, I will continue reading the letter that Kelly Paige wrote to the Winnipeg Free Press, the Winnipeg Sun and CJOB Radio, as follows: There are hundreds of us home care direct-service workers who want to work and are not intimidated by the threats and intimidation tactics of a corrupt system, organized by these union bosses and inside staff in professional positions that are working together to further confuse the emergency plans trying to be set up.
I wonder what threats. We know about the threats and intimidation Kelly Paige has already been subjected to, compliments of the NDP and the union, but I wonder what Kelly Paige is going to have to put--
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I believe it is unparliamentary to suggest, or even remotely, that the NDP has threatened and intimidated this particular individual. [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson, I cannot hear myself think because the member for Assiniboia is babbling on. It is totally inappropriate for the minister to not only suggest but to, in fact, indicate that there are some kinds of threats and intimidation. In fact, it is unparliamentary for the minister to suggest that the union did it, but, for the minister to suggest that we as a political party, our political members, do it is completely and totally out of order.
Mrs. McIntosh: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I find this rather amusing and absolutely revealing that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) assumed that the Minister of Health was talking about the NDP. I did not hear the Minister of Health say “the NDP” when he wondered aloud if Kelly--and again I have forgotten the last name, I am sorry--Kelly Paige might be subject to further intimidation because she wrote the letter. He did not say, by the member for Kildonan and the NDP. But the member for Kildonan made that assumption, which I find most interesting. I submit he has no point of order. I do not know why he came to that conclusion; nobody else did.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, and we must have a record here today for points of order raised by this honourable member. It is not me here. This is Kelly Paige, an MGEU card-carrying, dues-paying member, who is making these allegations, and the allegation is threats, intimidation tactics of a corrupt system, organized by these union bosses and inside staff in professional positions, et cetera, et cetera. It is not me saying that, and, if I said something unparliamentary, I would withdraw anything unparliamentary that I have said.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Okay, the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) does have a point of order. The wording, as it was put, was impugning motive, and I would ask the honourable minister to remove those words.
I do thank the minister because he has already said that he would withdraw those words.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, just in case it is not clear, I withdraw again any offending words that I have used.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: I will continue reading the letter from Kelly Page as follows: There are hundreds of us home care direct-service workers who want to work and are not intimidated by the threats and intimidation tactics of a corrupt system, organized by these union bosses and inside staff in professional positions that are working together to further confuse the emergency plans trying to be set up. All this to put pressure on Mr. McCrae in the public’s eye and shift the blame on him in the eyes of our clients again.
I will stop there for a moment. Would it be unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that the NDP condones this sort of thing? I seek your clarification on that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would ask that the minister use his words very cautiously and proceed with his comments, and at the point that a point of order is called, I would indeed rule on it.
Mr. McCrae: Well, I will not come right out and say that the NDP condones this kind of threat and intimidation tactics of a corrupt system. I will not adopt those words of my own. But how do members of the NDP respond to working, card-carrying, dues-paying members of the union who make those kinds of allegations? Do they just like to sweep it under the carpet because democracy is a meaningless expression in the NDP and the union movement? Is that what they would tell Kelly Paige in response to allegations by Kelly Paige of threats, intimidation and tactics of a corrupt system which the NDP daily is there defending their union boss friends in the House? Refusing to stand up for people with Parkinson’s disease? Refusing to stand up for people with multiple sclerosis? Refusing to stand up for people with Alzheimer’s disease? Refusing to stand up for people with severe cases of arthritis, and saying to them we object to people providing service to you?
This is what we are up against, Mr. Chairman, and the people of Manitoba do not know all of the things that the New Democratic Party supports. They do not know. If they did, there would not be 20 of them in our Legislature, if that is how many they have got--21 or whatever it is, too many, whatever. None of them would be there if the people really knew what the NDP stood for. Taking people’s groceries out of their shopping baskets and throwing them on the ground and hissing and shouting and spitting and slashing tires and breaking windows and bombs, I think, have been mentioned. All these sorts of things. Why does the NDP not stand up and say, enough, stop, we object to this, we want no part of this, we do not want to be associated with any kind of organization that condones or does those sorts of things? Why is it the NDP does not do that? I leave it for them to respond.
The letter written by Kelly Paige continues as follows: I told my employer right from the start that I did not back a walkout in this area of work we do. I never once turned down an assignment from her. I worked 14-hour days for her, any shifts, and was available whenever she called. She told me how much she appreciated me and how I have helped her greatly, and, if I ever needed a reference, there would be no problem whatsoever.
This is Kelly Paige talking about her supervisor who she says is a union sympathizer. The letter continues: That was before I would not back the strike action. I asked her to work. I asked her for a schedule. I asked her for a reference. All I got from her was, I do not know. I called Jim McCrae’s office and asked them for help because I wanted to work during the strike. They helped me, informed me, and told me what would be happening, and that I would continue to work with all my clients still. But I am sitting at home this morning with no work. My supervisor either moved all my clients into the hospital or brought in their backup service, Central Health, to take them at a higher cost to the government than what it would cost for me to continue giving them care. The same time that I was telling the clients that I would continue to work through the strike, my supervisor and case co-ordinators were telling them that I nor anyone would be working during the strike.
I will pause here, Mr. Chairman. This is--
* (1610)
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: I wonder if you might--the distractions from the members--perhaps you might admonish the newly arrived members to committee and advise them about the fact that we are dealing with committee business and perhaps conversations between themselves and the minister ought to take place outside of the Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: When it is appropriate. Thank you to the member for Kildonan. When it is appropriate I will advise all members of that.
The honourable minister, to finish his remarks.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Kildonan obviously thinks he can make everyone conform to his view of the world. Well, it is going to take a very long time for that to happen, I can tell you.
The letter from Kelly Paige continues. When I called back my contact through Jim McCrae’s office, they knew nothing of this tactic and what my supervisor was doing.
I was told by my supervisor to sit at home and she would get back to me the next day. I am still waiting. There is no need for a lot of our clients to be in the confusion that they are in today, nor to be without their regular caregiver. We are sitting here ready to work. You cannot blame Jim McCrae for this. This is the result of low tactics of supervisors to help the union.
Mr. Deputy Chairman, time obviously will not allow me to complete reading Kelly Paige’s letter, but I can guarantee honourable members this committee is going to hear it all.
Mr. Chomiak: I wonder if the minister can comment about a letter that I am going to read into the record. Since the minister seems to be fond of reading letters. I wonder if he might comment on a letter.
Dear Mr. McCrae, dated March 29, 1996, so you said on a questionnaire that you had not received any complaints about Central Health Services when they are backing up home care. Perhaps we are all too polite to complain.
Here is mine. On Thursday, the 14th of March, I came out of hospital following a stroke. I have a husband with MS. I am not supposed to transfer him or lift him for a while. On Sunday, the 17th of March, three days after I came out of hospital, Central Health Services--and I will just pause here for the edification of members who do not know Central Health Services are a private company that the ministers awarded a contract to in the sum of about $800,000 to do a backup. Central Health to continue--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. To all members on both sides, I would ask that you give each speaker the opportunity to pose their questions, comments and answers in a relatively quiet manner. Thank you.
Mr. Chomiak: On Sunday, March 17, three days after I came out of the hospital, Central Health Services were supposed to send us a home care attendant from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. The person they sent did not know how to transfer someone. She did not know how to attend to my husband’s personal needs. She was unable to get him out of bed. She said she was a maid, she usually cleaned houses. The lady was very upset because she was unable to help my husband. I was very upset because she could not help my husband. My husband was very upset, and stress causes my husband’s condition to deteriorate. I will just pause here and indicate that this is an individual with MS.
She should never have been sent to us. It was a very stressful day for all of us. I am complaining to you personally so that you will know what is happening. I would like to add that I have used Central Health Services and We Care on a number of previous occasions, not through home care and privately. On a number of occasions, they have been unable to send anyone at all out to us. On other occasions, the people they sent were not satisfactory, so how is this going to improve home care services? Perhaps I will repeat that. I would like to add that I have used Central Health Services and We Care on a number of previous occasions, not through Home Care but privately. On a number of occasions they have been unable to send anyone at all out to us. On other occasions the people they sent were not satisfactory, so how is that going to improve home care services? Furthermore, I am sure that Central Home Services will make a claim to Home Care to be reimbursed for a home care attendant, not for a maid. This is the way you want to save money. I might add that is underlined, that is in exclamation marks.
I am going to do another letter, read another letter to the minister dated January 4. This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation. It is to We Care of January 2, 1996. I started with We Care providing my nursing care Friday through Sunday and holidays Monday through the summer. A registered nurse has provided care. However, I would have to phone the We Care office on Thursday to see who is going to be doing my care every week. Sometimes they are able to tell me the whole weekend and at other times they did not know who is to do my care, and I would have to phone back. I asked them to phone me, but they never remembered. Home Care had a shortage of nurses and asked me if I was satisfied with the service that We Care was providing. I said, yes. Home Care decided to ask We Care to do all my calls. This was the beginning of the end for me.
I had to call on Monday to see who was coming, doing my care during the week and on Friday to see who was doing the weekend. I asked for a two-week schedule from Dana. It was delayed and delayed. I was told that Dana would have to ask her boss if that could be done. Finally I called my case co-ordinator from Home Care. They made up a schedule including a nurse that I refused to have because she did not complete my care and was sloppy in the work she did. It also included a nurse five mornings a week. I said that I would take an emergency as when she came I always had the feeling that I was interfering in her social life. As well, the schedule was written so small, it was barely readable. I protested and Dana sent a new schedule which was readable and the two nurses were replaced. That was not the end.
I had a nurse that was hurt in a car accident. I just want to add, Mr. Chairperson, at this point--now, this is again for the private firms that the minister is so fond of and will indicate will provide such excellent service--We Care still sent her to do work even though it was very visible by the way she moved that she was hurting. I would ask for things to be missed in my care, and I was afraid that she would be hurt further or I would be hurt. I have had nurses come here that have been so sick that they were as white as the sheet of my bed. We Care seems to have a policy that if a nurse is sick, she should go to the morning call and be replaced later. They do not seem to care that the client is compromised to begin with.
I have had calls missed because the office told me that a certain nurse was coming at a particular time. When I asked the nurse on an earlier visit if she was doing that call, she replied she had not been asked or had told them she was not able to do the call. When I told the office this, they insist the nurse is coming and no one showed up for the call. I am left waiting for them to find someone. And again I add, Mr. Chairperson, this is We Care Health Services that the minister intends to foist upon all of us in the city of Winnipeg.
I will continue the letter. I am extremely allergic to perfume and highly scented products. Twice I have gone into anaphylactic shock. I was sent a nurse that reeked of perfume. I had an asthma attack and sent her away. When I phoned We Care, I was told by the supervisor on the night that she did not know I was allergic and that they had no one to do my care--that they had no one to do my care.
I did phone Sherry Hoppe and told her that if anyone ever came to my house again wearing scented products, I would sue her. I understand everyone at We Care has now been made aware of my allergy. It is a step forward, Mr. Chairperson. I had the same nurse doing my four calls which began at 8:30 a.m. and ended 11:15 p.m. for 12 days straight. Under the circumstances she did a good job; however, parts of my care get missed, such as them forgetting to remind me to take my pills, forgetting to do my blood pressure and, last but not least, leaving clothing and footwear on the floor where I would fall over it if I get up at night. I told the We Care office that it does not work having one person doing all the calls. The office turned around and told the nurse that I could not stand having the same nurse more than twice a day.
The Christmas holidays were a nightmare. Realizing that some of the regular nurses would be replaced, I called to see who would be doing the holidays. Again they gave me the names, but someone else showed up. I had a nurse that was visibly tired to do my morning care which worked out okay. However, We Care was on the phone during my care demanding she fill in all the calls for the other worker who was sick. She had worked all four calls the day before, worked all night at a nursing home and did my morning call. It appears that the office does not care about the safety of the nurse or the client.
* (1620)
I called to ask who was coming for the weekend, on New Year’s Day. The person who answered the phone was so enraged that I was asking, she turned to another office staff and said, it is Barb and she is being a real--and I will not use the word because it is unparliamentary. I was being very polite and had a witness to that fact. I did tell her that, if she was going to refer to her clients by this name, please make sure the phone is hung up. The names she gave me for the holiday were not correct. I got a call at 10 p.m. on December 31 saying that the nurse I refused to have anymore coming to do my morning and noon calls on the 1st of January. I repeated the incidents to Sherry Hoppe when she returned from vacation. She did not even apologize on behalf of the corporation.
This tells me that We Care is only interested in grabbing the money from Home Care for our service. I just hate to think of how We Care treats people who are not as articulate or have the knowledge to complain. This is my private residence, and I have a right to know in a timely manner who is coming here; as well, I should be treated with the utmost respect by the office staff. I have asked Home Care to remove We Care from my home as soon as possible. Until such time, I do not expect any ramifications from the office staff for writing this letter.
I would just like to repeat that, Mr. Chairperson: Until such time, I do not expect any ramifications from the office staff for writing this letter. I will miss the nurses who have always done their best to provide the best care they could.
I also like to ask the minister if he would comment on a letter dated April 11, 1996, and this letter is directed to the Honourable Health Minister Jim McCrae, an open letter.
Dear Sir: My wife and I are 83 and 85 years old, respectively, and we both have serious--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education on a point of--
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, for clarification, I do not believe the member indicated the name of the letter writer, either the one before or the one now, and I do not think he is reading anonymous letters into the record. I mean, we are not reading anonymous letters into the record; I do not think he is either. But he is not giving a name that will give credibility to the letter, I mean, how do we know he just did not make up himself if he does not give a name to go with it. So could he please clarify whom the letters are from and that it was just not made up by somebody else?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I guess I could say that it is up to the member to clarify that if he wishes, or if the members of the committee wish to have him table, they can ask him to table it.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, if the Education minister had not been so engrossed in conversation with the minister, perhaps when I was reading the second letter, she would have heard me refer to the author. I did, and she could check Hansard, even though she is not paying attention. With respect to the first letter, the first letter was from Margaret Gaunt, G-A-U-N-T, and the third letter is now to continue.
My wife and I are 83 and 85 years old, respectively, and we both have serious, incapacitating medical conditions; that is, we are invalids. The nearest hospital in Winnipeg is about 40 kilometres away. Thank heavens we have had access to home care services for the last six months. Those caring, dedicated people have provided an excellent service, and, by the way, we firmly believe they deserve every penny they earn on this job. We simply cannot comprehend why a caring Health minister will try to fix something that does not need fixing. We have been married 65 years, and, now, in these very difficult and vulnerable circumstances, we face being separated. If Emily’s home care is discontinued, she will have to go to a hospital. I cannot drive, so I could not visit her, and I will be left to fend for myself. We are near panic. I am sure there are many others who have the same growing anxiety, and for what? Why this mania for privatization, whether it is good or bad or even inhumane? I sometimes think that it all has to do with the fanatical desire to destroy unions. Why should this be so? Are unions not a fundamental part of living in a democracy?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairperson, I have received certainly one of those letters. I recollect reading, I remember being on a radio program making the comment referred to in the first letter the honourable member read and thinking immediately after I said, well, I will get some letters now having said that, but I had not up until that point.
I can tell the honourable member that the very things complained of in these letters are possible right now because the NDP and their union friends will not agree to an essential services agreement that allows for service to be delivered to these people. The very problems the honourable member complains about today he encourages to continue by supporting his union boss friends in their insistence to pull off the job people who provide vital lifesaving services to vulnerable Manitobans. So I guess the honourable member might want to reflect on that a little bit.
I think it is pretty hard, the organic fusion that I referred to makes it very hard for honourable members in the New Democratic Party to have minds of their own. This is a problem when it comes to the representation of all Manitobans. When your first duty is to union boss friends I guess it is hard to carry out your duty to all the people who actually elected you. But I say to the honourable member that if we are going to produce letters, I guess I will produce all my letters. I will not identify the authors though, because I do not have their permission, but people who have written to me in my two and a half years in the Department of Health complaining about the Home Care program. The honourable member wants to defend something today while there is a strike on and his union boss friends tell him to, but not for the last two and a half years. It is okay to rail daily about the problems and concerns that he has about the home care system, but all of a sudden they have all evaporated.
The honourable member said a little while ago, he used the word “shallow.” Well, the honourable member’s approach and double standard here is so transparent that it is unfortunate that all Manitobans do not know about it, because all Manitobans do not. They have managed to, the New Democrats have managed to fool Manitobans for a long time and that is, of course, a problem that I think I need to deal with, and that is why it was asked earlier today about a public information program that we have begun in Manitoba. Of course, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) wants us to put an end to that sort of thing because, oh, we cannot have informed Manitobans because they are going to hear some message other than ours, which is the NDP union boss message. We cannot have that. My goodness, that would be a terrible thing, for someone to know about another point of view.
The honourable member talks about a shallow sort of approach to things. He wrote the book on it, Mr. Chairman, but now that he has brought forward letters from people complaining about a couple of private care deliverers, I guess I will have to review my files and pull out all the letters I have received since September 10, 1993, and maybe the ones received by my predecessor before that as well and I will begin reading them into the record at the next sitting of this committee.
In the meantime I will continue reading the letter that I received from Kelly Paige. I did not receive it directly, but it is a letter written to three of the news media here in the city of Winnipeg, and I have asked the Winnipeg Sun, I have asked the Winnipeg Free Press to ensure that this letter is printed so that members of the public can be aware of the feelings that Kelly Paige, a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the MGEU, has. I think the public is entitled to know what Kelly Paige thinks, because she or he too is a citizen of this province, and I believe it is appropriate that the citizens of this province know what the views of Kelly Paige are.
To continue, and I quote: So you can blame Jim McCrae for finding a solution to a lot that is wrong with our present health care system as it now stands, but blame the union and its followers for what they are doing, not Jim McCrae. Our own supervisors chose to dupe Mr. McCrae with the hundreds of us that will still be there for you through this strike. Your caregivers chose to walk out on you. It was a free decision. No one made them do it. They chose to make you suffer so that your public outcry will further benefit them in their fight with Jim McCrae.
I hope that at the very least the Minister of Health does now, despite the outcome, is to clean up the staff in a health care system that badly needs it. Maybe they should hire some more suitable qualified applicants for this profession, so that this never has to happen to our clients again. They will not walk out.
It is signed, Mr. Chairman, by Kelly Paige.
I notice we have some New Democratic members who have joined us late this afternoon, and I would like them to know the contents of this letter from Kelly Paige. I will read the covering note for them. It is dated yesterday, April 16, 1996.
* (1630)
To whom this may concern: This is a copy of a letter that I have sent to the Winnipeg Sun and CJOB. I have previously sent one to the Free Press which was not published.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am encouraging the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun to publish this letter so that Manitobans can know the views of this card-carrying, dues-paying--it is not by choice, your dues are confiscated from you by union bosses. Whether you agree with their opinions or not, you are forced to finance the views of the New Democrats and the union.
Kelly Paige goes on: I am presently still an MGEU member who voted no to strike action and am disgusted with the union and members who chose to walk out on thousands of sick and disabled seniors who need them. I called your office last week to continue working through the strike and was helped and told what to do, but thanks to my supervisor, who is pro-union, that was not possible.
I will pause here, Mr. Chairman. This is where the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) draws some kind of a distinction. He wanted to know which supervisor it was, because he was drawing a distinction and saying, that supervisor is still working for your department, Mr. Minister, so do not blame the union. But what Kelly Paige points out is that this supervisor is a union supporter, pro-union is the way Kelly puts it.
(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Quote: I called your office last week to continue working through the strike and was helped and told what to do; but thanks to my supervisor, who is pro-union, that was not possible. She will give me some assignments, no doubt, the union-approved ones with palliative care, but not the regular run.
I do in our block project where I can care for several people instead of one. I do not want to work for the union or follow their directions. I want to work with all our clients that they have walked out on. I have been very tactfully threatened by my supervisor with regard to my job and with work after the strike. She suggested I find work in a hospital or somewhere.
That is the covering letter. Here is the letter in full.
An Honourable Member: Will you not table it?
Mr. McCrae: Well, you will probably see it published in the Free Press and in the Sun tomorrow, because I have asked both newspapers to publish it. I hope they do, because it reflects--
An Honourable Member: Is that a yes?
Mr. McCrae: Well, I can table it quite easily, sure.
An Honourable Member: Just like Connie Curran’s report?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member wants to talk about Connie Curran again. This is a popular theme for the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). He likes to talk about Connie Curran. Connie Curran did not provide, did not make a report. It was never agreed that there would be a report.
See, the mentality of the NDP is, you put down your money and you get something that you can hold in your hand, you know. Like this one, I do not know what they paid Price Waterhouse for this report, but I will tell honourable members all about what the Price Waterhouse report says. I will tell honourable members all about what the report from Seven Oaks Hospital and the We Care home health services report says, the one that the member for Kildonan supports. I will tell members all about that, but I want the members who have joined us late to hear from Kelly Paige. I only have 30 seconds left, so I will have to do this next opportunity I get, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, we have made some progress here during the course of this discussion and this debate. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) wonders, and I can certainly understand him wondering, but it is very interesting and I think it is very illustrative of what is wrong with health care in this province and what is wrong with the minister’s policy as it relates to home care, in particular, insofar as the minister refused to table documents, refused to table the studies on privatization, but when I read into the record after he had read into the record three or four times a letter from his new favourite person, the minister said that he was going to bring forward all of the letters of complaints that he has received in his office on home care for the past few years and read them into the record. He turned to his staffperson and asked his staffperson to bring these letters forward.
What does that say about this minister’s commitment to the Home Care program in the province of Manitoba? That this minister does not believe in the Home Care program, that he goes out of his way to criticize the Home Care program as it exists, at every corner. Is there any doubt why the government is moving towards privatizing it when the very minister who is charged with the responsibility of directing the Home Care program will do anything he has, anything in his power to try to undermine the program, to undermine the credibility of the program. Indeed, turning to his staffperson and asking his staffperson to pull all of the letters of complaint about home care is illustrative of where the minister is coming from, where the minister will do anything he can to undermine the Home Care program as it exists in the province of Manitoba.
I think the minister’s actions speak volumes about his commitment to home care, and perhaps we are now finally understanding where and how the government is proceeding with regard to home care. In other words, it is fairly clear the government does not believe that home care as presently run in the province of Manitoba ought to remain in public hands. They made it clear from the Treasury Board submission that the Home Care program is going to be privatized completely. It is clear that the government has no intention or no commitment to continue the public Home Care program, and I think that this is a real tragedy, particularly when the very report that the minister constantly refers to, the Price Waterhouse report, a report done well over 10 years ago, indicated that the Home Care program was the best in North America.
Again, I remind the minister, the minister is so unaware of what is going on in his own department that he does not realize there were implementation committees, in fact, at the Department of Health to deal with some of the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report that he so gleefully quotes from, having resurrected it and having someone bring it to his attention yesterday, I dare say the first time in two and a half years.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Chairperson, there is something fundamentally flawed when the Minister of Health does everything that he can to undermine the Home Care program as it exists in the province and does everything that he can to downgrade the program, and I guess that explains it. Perhaps the minister has therefore answered the question that I asked and have now asked for two days, where is the initiative? Where are the plans? Why are they moving to privatize?
The minister by his actions and by his words clearly illustrates to all Manitobans and anyone reading this debate that the minister does not believe the Home Care program is a valuable service, will do anything he can to undermine the Home Care program. Rather than improving a program that has flaws and unquestionably needs refinement, the minister is holus-bolus privatizing the entire program and has perpetrated by his actions a strike and has thrown the lives of many Manitobans into disarray by his actions and his insistent need to privatize. To privatize on what basis? Clearly, he does not believe in the program as it exists. Clearly, he has no studies and no documentation from either inside the Department of Health or outside the Department of Health that he is willing to share dealing with privatization.
Today, in the House, he failed, Mr. Chairperson, to provide us with the recommendations from the Connie Curran report that looked at home care implementation, and I draw the attention to the minister. I am sure he has not read the contract, but it called for her to provide an outline and an Action Plan with respect to home care, and we paid $160,000 to her to do that. So either she did not provide The Action Plan for which we paid $160,000 and we should have our money back or she did provide The Action Plan and the minister is failing to produce it and further the minister is failing to provide for public review the recommendations of his own advisory committee on home care which has made recommendations with respect to privatization, albeit after the fact. They were in fact given the mandate to review the whole issue of privatization after the submission had already gone to Treasury Board.
So I think we now understand and I think it is fairly clear from the comments of the minister what this government and what this minister’s commitment is with respect to home care. It is fairly clear now that nothing or any arguments made by the vast majority of Manitobans will sway this minister from his single-minded approach to privatize home care and to make home care a private model that has been recommended by organizations like We Care publicly documented. I have the documentation. It is passing strange that the very plan proposed by Treasury Board and by this minister under his signature resembles exactly the proposal of We Care Incorporated made in 1993 to privatize home care, but it is fairly clear from the minister’s statements and the minister’s actions that he will do anything he can to undermine the provincial Home Care program in order to allow it to be privatized and move it over to the government. I suppose I could call them the government advisers in the private sector who have advised and recommended that he privatize home care.
* (1640)
I return to my question that I asked two questions ago. Specifically, I wonder if the minister will outline specifically what the government plans are for the Home Care program in both the short term and in the long term and how it relates to the Treasury Board submission dated December 16, 1995, and what the implementation procedures and plans are in that regard.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, first off, let me go back. Parts of the Home Care program have been privatized since the beginning. I think the honourable member for Kildonan owes the Victorian Order of Nurses a very big apology for his comments in the House yesterday where he maligned them and just basically said things that were not very nice about the Victorian Order of Nurses. He obviously owes apologies to a lot of others, but I am in no hope of ever getting any from him on those ones. But certainly with regard to the VON, I think that he might want to reflect on what he said in maligning the Victorian Order of Nurses so badly there yesterday, that he might indeed as an honourable member want to reflect and ultimately apologize to the Victorian Order of Nurses for that.
There have been all kinds of reviews and studies and reports, and I have one in my hand that was commissioned by the New Democrats back in 1986.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: A point of order, Mr. Chairperson. I am looking for clarification from the Chair whether it is appropriate for the minister to suggest that another member has maligned an organization and whether in fact that is parliamentary.
Mr. McCrae: Well, if it is not parliamentary, I would withdraw it anyway.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister has said already that he would withdraw it if in fact it did impugn motive.
I would caution all members indeed in some of the comments made by the member for Kildonan, just in this last question and comments, that we are coming so very close to impugning motives if in fact we did not. So I would caution all members, and I thank the minister for withdrawing your comment.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, sometimes in discussions in Legislatures, people get carried away and they say things that they really should not because they are not parliamentary. I certainly do not want to offend those rules, and I thank the honourable member for Kildonan for bringing to my attention the fact that I might have gone a little past the line of what is appropriate in the Legislature. Having done so, I gladly would withdraw any words that offend our rules.
Whatever it was he did to the VON, he should apologize for it, though, because it was not very nice. Let us put it that way.
Mr. Chairman, I was referring to a report. I mean, reports are very important to the New Democrats. Because if you have a report that says something, then you can condemn what it says, or if you do not have a report that does not say anything, you can condemn that there is no report that does not say anything--[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am having trouble hearing the minister making his comments.
Mr. McCrae: You see, if you are a New Democrat, especially if you are in opposition, Mr. Chairman, you have that luxury of total irresponsibility which we see daily in this place--[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will have their opportunity to ask questions and make comments.
Mr. McCrae: And so, Mr. Chairman, here we are. We are looking at this report commissioned by the New Democrats in 1986, and this report on page xix, small letters, says: The program should require regional program managers to manage their budgets more actively and to stay within approved levels and should give program staff greater discretion over service levels per client, i.e., permitting dilution of services in order to achieve budget targets.
This is the position of the NDP, dilute the services, Mr. Chairman, and cut and hack and slash.
Point of Order
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): A point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is not the position of the New Democratic Party. It was the recommendation of Price Waterhouse which we did not--I repeat, did not--accept.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. This is definitely not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister, to finish his comments.
Mr. McCrae: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, what the member said because I was engaged in something a little more important than what she--[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Would the member for Wellington give the minister the opportunity to finish his comments?
Mr. McCrae: Now the member for Wellington wants us to believe that they do not accept cutting and hacking and slashing services like their report says when they were in government. Now they want us to believe something different from what they were saying then.
I suppose the member for Wellington is going to say she does not agree with this one either. This recommendation she and her colleagues made back in--or not maybe she, but the NDP made back in 1986: The program should give consideration to introducing measures that would serve to encourage clients to meet their needs through their own resources, e.g., user fees, waiting periods prior to receiving nonprofessional services, user fees during the initial period of service and limiting hours in which services are provided.
Now, this is NDP policy and this is very alarming, and I wonder if the clients of the home care system know that. But now that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is here, he has an opportunity now to set the record straight.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I believe it is common practice in our Chamber and in our committee not to make reference to members being present or absent and the minister has done that on several occasions and--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan does have a point of order, and I would ask members not to refer to the presence or absence of members.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: It is an old rule, and I have clearly breached it. The member for Transcona’s (Mr. Reid) presence or absence should not be the subject of comment. Having made a comment like that, I forgot about it because momentarily I thought it applied to the Chamber itself. As honourable members know, not everybody--can I speak in a generic sense?--always attends all committee meetings. Is it okay to say that?
Anyway, for the benefit of the honourable member for Transcona, I am sure he wants an opportunity to set the record straight here because of some of the scandalous things he said during Question Period today. I know he will want to correct the record. Surely he was not--is that wrong too?--scandalous, I withdraw. See, we have the great censor sitting over here. The honourable member for Kildonan thinks he can bully and tell everybody what to do, say, think, feel, all of those kinds of things because he has got friends in the union movement, Mr. Chairman. He can do those things. He can threaten, he can intimidate, he can scare the wits out of the clients of our home care system, all with great impunity because his friends the union bosses will protect him. Well, is that not wonderful. Is that not special. He will not threaten me and he will not intimidate me and neither will his union boss friends.
* (1650)
I have clients to look after. He does not care about them. I do.
The honourable member for Transcona has raised issues today in the Legislature. He wants people to be denied services. He was as clear about that as anything I have ever heard, and maybe he would like to use the opportunity provided to him in this committee to set the record straight.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I believe the minister suggested that the member for Transcona wanted to deny people services. I think that imputes motives, and I would ask the minister to withdraw that.
Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, in Question Period today the member for Transcona was objecting to people providing services or people counselling other people to provide services or people encouraging other people to provide services to people with multiple sclerosis, people with Parkinson’s disease. He led me to believe that he was against that, that he opposed it vociferously. I will not say violently because that is probably too much of a link with the union movement and inappropriate.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Once again, I would ask all honourable members to choose their words carefully. We are doing everything in our power here to get through these Estimates, and I would ask all members to choose their words carefully.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member keeps coming back and asking about reports. What I have been trying to do is refer to a report which I assume represents the NDP’s policies because they commissioned it, in the same way that everything Connie Curran thinks represents my policy in the rather narrow mind of the honourable member for Kildonan or in the same way that anything out there, anything some bad person thinks I must think too, so that is the kind of mentality we have got in the New Democratic Party, and I am just adopting a little bit of it myself today so that the honourable member knows what it is like to deal with that sort of approach. So that is all I am doing.
But I guess I assume here that the honourable member agrees with all of these comments that are made in the Price Waterhouse report, the executive summary thereto. It says things like this, Mr. Chairman, with which I assume the honourable member for Kildonan agrees.
The review found that the mandate of the program has drifted as the program is increasingly used to serve a hospital replacement function. If the program is to adequately fulfill this additional role, it will have to place a greater emphasis on guaranteeing the availability and delivery of complex care services.
It goes on later, quote, it also identified a need for a comprehensive quality assurance program that would gather and report information on service quality across all regions. Do not forget, Mr. Chairman, all of these comments are made in that report and then the NDP policy after that is to fix everything by imposing user fees. I mean really, let us get serious. That is not the way to deal with the people who receive services. You identify the problems in a report and then you go with user fees and cuts in service to deal with it. That is what the NDP was about to do when they were thrown out of office.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, some things have become clear during the course of this debate, this discussion, this question and answer. It is fairly clear where the minister and the government stand with respect to their support for the home care system. I want to acknowledge that it must be frustrating for a lot of members. I note the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has been present during the course of this committee and is anxious to ask questions, as well as other members of my party and members of the government. This constant dialogue between myself and the minister may not appear to be making progress, but I am actually of an optimistic nature and think that we are actually moving towards some meaningful discussion, which I think is what we are here for, of the course of health care in the province of Manitoba.
I wonder if we might be able to move this along. The minister constantly refers to the Price Waterhouse report. I do not know if the minister knows--I am sure his officials are aware of the fact--that the government has implementation teams with respect to the Price Waterhouse report and has had implementation teams with respect to the Price Waterhouse report. Perhaps, the minister might come back with some of the comments and discussions of those implementation teams with respect to the Price Waterhouse report and we can move off of the report from several years ago and perhaps deal with more contemporary matters, very serious matters, facing the province and the Department of Health at present, particularly as it relates to home care.
So I wonder if the minister might provide that information.
Mr. McCrae: Yes, Mr. Chairman, what the member is inviting us to do is to keep trying to make recommendations and just keep on trying and they will just keep shooting them down until we find one that he likes, then it will be okay as long as it includes something that is approved by the union boss friends. That is the way his system works. As long as there is something going on that is not approved by his union boss friends, he will ask millions of questions about it and fight tooth and nail because that is where they get their money.
So the honourable member needs to be aware, reminded, that the report that his colleagues in the NDP--supported no doubt by the union boss friends--commissioned a report that recommends user fees and cuts in service. He cannot run away from that anymore than I can run away from Connie Curran. So let us be honest with each other--oh, wrong word again, cannot be honest with each other. We are not supposed to do that in the Legislature. That is unparliamentary, you see. But, it is okay to call people racists and fight for your right to call somebody a racist but then you cannot say let us be honest because that is unparliamentary. So I will withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.
The Price Waterhouse report states that the review identified that the program lacks a comprehensive information system that collects and reports client service, management and financial data on an automated basis. It says there is no strategic data plan. It says the open-ended nature of the program raises questions as to whether there is a need for appropriate mechanisms for capping costs or services. It says the review found that there are inadequate hospital discharge planning practices that lead to inappropriate discharges to home care, lack of proper discharge preparation and potentially unsafe client situations, and the member said yesterday, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), go back to the system we had in the first place. The one that was potentially unsafe for clients, that is what he wants us to go back to. Shame on the member; shame on him.
I continue with this Price Waterhouse report. It also found gaps in services that are outside the scope of the Continuing Care Program. In some regions, the Continuing Care Program is perceived as the deepest pocket program and is being used to fill some of these gaps. This results in serious departures from program guidelines, inconsistencies among regions and a sense of unfairness amongst staff and clients in those regions that are complying with the program scope.
The honourable member wants, as he said yesterday in the House, Mr. Chairman, he said, go back to the system we had in the first place. He wants to go back where there are serious departures from program guidelines. The member for Kildonan wants to go back to inconsistencies amongst regions, and he wants to go back to a sense of unfairness amongst staff and clients.
Do you know why the New Democrats like a sense of unfairness amongst people? Because they like to whip stuff up and create a sense that there is something terribly wrong here that our union boss friends can fix and make the world right for everybody. That is where the New Democrats are coming from. They want--I want to get the words just right because I have been accused of not getting it right sometimes--to go back to the system we had in the first place. The member wants to go back to all of that. The member wants to go back to, and I quote from his report, significant inefficiencies revealed during the review of the intake process.
* (1700)
He wants to go back to the significant inefficiencies of the program. He wants to go back to indiscriminate and inappropriate use of the joint nurse and social worker assessments in Winnipeg. He wants to go back to deficiency in the panelling process. He wants to go back to inconsistencies in the panel’s make-up, inappropriate use of panels, incomplete case preparation for panels and inadequate case presentations. He wants to go back to a system where in some instances clients were being panelled simply because staff wanted to qualify them for enriched home care services and not because they were being seriously considered for institutional placement. That is what the member for Kildonan wants us to go back to. He wants to go back to workloads among case co-ordinators and resource co-ordinators that are excessively high. This is really unsafe for our clients, but that is what the honourable member wants us to go back to. He wants to go back to workloads that have serious implications in terms of service delays, lack of reassessments, overservicing, greater client dependence on services and inappropriate reliance on direct-service workers for case management information. This is the kind of stuff the member for Kildonan wants us to go back to, Mr. Chairman, he and his union boss friends. Why?
Well, maybe Kelly Paige has it right after all when she says, this is not about care for people. This is about wages and benefits and unions dues and people getting taken out of their pockets union dues to be spent by union leaders and sent to the New Democrats. Maybe that is what this is really all about, and maybe the honourable member should come clean and talk about those sorts of things. But, no, he wants us to go back to heavy workloads that result in direct-service workers receiving inadequate supervision and resulting in inadequate contact between program staff and clients. They do not care about clients, Mr. Chairman. They want to go back to this inadequate contact between program staff and clients.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I have listened very carefully to the minister’s tirade, and I think he is again imputing motive by indicating that we do not care about clients. I think that in light of the situation we are in today that that is a motive improperly imputed.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Well, he wants to go back a lot. This is the old hidebound CCF approach. He forgets that they are not--they call themselves New Democrats. When are they going to drop the “New” by the way? This is absolutely ridiculous. You do not reflect anything new in this country. You reflect the mentality of 40 years ago before things started changing in this country.
They want to go back to high workloads which contribute to inappropriate servicing. That is what they want, inappropriate servicing, unauthorized servicing and unnecessary costs being incurred by the program.
Here is something that I think makes New Democrats lick their lips and rub their hands together because they would like this part. The impending unionization of direct-service workers should foster a closer relationship with the program. This should help to address many of the concerns of the direct-service workers, although it will also reduce the flexibility the program has had in contracting them. This is a report the New Democrats asked for. The impending unionization of direct-service workers will also have major short- and long-term cost implications for the program.
Is that what the member wants to go back to? More long- and short-term cost implications? They do not care. They do not have to sit on the side of the House that has to raise the money from the taxpayers. I remember one time in 1987-88, I told Rolly Penner to get his hands out of the taxpayers’ pockets, and he was the Attorney General at the time. Roland Penner took great, great offence to that comment. I made it from my seat on the opposition side. He got up and when his turn came to speak in that particular budget debate he gave a long, long speech about the right of the state to have its hands in the pockets of the populace. It reflected very well for me what New Democrats really stand for. [interjection] It was the one before the one with which the New Democrats self-destructed. I think it was the one before that. That would have been--
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: I think you have admonished us on many occasions to try to stay relevant. I do not see how the relevance of a previous debate the minister had with a former Attorney General or a previous budget in 1987 bears any resemblance whatsoever--even by stretching the ministry despite the fact the minister is reading from a report from 1986, even by virtue of that I do not see how you can stretch that to be possibly relevant to the question posed.
Mr. McCrae: I can see how the honourable member for Kildonan might see my comments somehow wandering away a little bit from the main point of his question, but I think if the honourable member really thinks about it, the only reason he is upset by it is, it is starting to get to him, that the whole approach of him and his cronies in the union movement is to enrich the union movement.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Once again, I ask all honourable members, not just the minister at this point who is speaking, but all honourable members to try to be as relevant as possible. I am ruling though that in fact this is still a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Indeed, I think what I was saying was extremely relevant even though in the ever fertile mind of the honourable member for Kildonan it could somehow be construed as veering from the path of relevancy, but I think I should read that last bit from the Price Waterhouse report again, because it says two things. It says a good thing and it says something that is not quite so good. It does not say anything about clients, but here it goes.
The impending unionization of direct-service workers should foster a closer relationship with the program. This should help to address--although I do not see that relationship with the program today, because these people are not providing any services to seniors and others in Manitoba who need them with the full gleeful support of the members of the New Democratic Party.
In any event, it goes on. This should help to address many of the concerns of the direct-service workers, and this is the important part, although it will also reduce the flexibility the program has enjoyed in contracting them. I think that is a pretty clear statement about where we are at right about now.
The honourable member asks, which reports? Well, I am reading from one right now. How long is he going to harp away about reports? I am telling you, the honourable member, as I told you, reminds me of that lawyer who, I know, when he does not have any evidence, he pounds the facts. When he does not have any facts, he pounds the evidence, and, when he does not have either, he pounds the desk. That is this fellow right over here, the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who just--[interjection]
Mr. Chairman, the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) is beginning to bristle a little bit, and I assure him and all the members of his honourable, honourable profession, including the member for Kildonan, I know with whom the Minister of Labour stands shoulder to shoulder on this particular point, that I meant no offence to the members of the legal profession. I say that through the Attorney General so that she can pass that on to anyone who might have felt that way, because I certainly did not mean any offence.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister’s time has elapsed.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I do not understand the minister’s response, because my question to the minister was whether or not he realized that with respect to the Price Waterhouse report there were implementation committees by his own department that he is probably unaware of--perhaps he is aware--that deal with that report, and I asked him if he would table some of that information instead of reading from a report that is 10 years old in an attempt to somehow draw some kind of conclusion, the very report that said, in our view Manitoba illustrates one of the best long-term systems in North America. It makes the point that I made in my previous question that it seems to me that ideologically or philosophically or for whatever reason the minister is not committed and has no confidence in the present home care system as exists in Manitoba, and it again seems to answer quite--it seems to provide for me answers to the question as to why the government is privatizing.
Clearly the government has no commitment or any confidence in the home care system as it exists, and it is clear from the minister’s responses and the minister’s remarks that that is the case. From the minister’s inability to provide us with studies and documentation as to why they are privatizing it is fairly clear that the government’s policy initiative is based on a philosophy of privatization at all costs and with very little strong information, very little facts or any kind of studies that would justify the move towards privatization. Therein lies the problem.
* (1710)
We are now in a situation of a strike in home care, and we are in a situation where the public has said over and over again, put the information on the table. Tell us why you are privatizing. Tell us the reasons why you are proceeding in this course of action. Now, had the minister or had the government put this information--and I still challenge the minister and the government to put this information forward. Allow for public debate. Allow for public discussion. Perhaps you will be able to persuade the public, the clients, the caregivers and the public in general about the wisdom of your move and, therefore, you will be able to proceed with the public supporting you.
As it exists now, not only have you refused to provide information to the public but here in the committee constantly over and over again the minister is refusing to provide information. He is refusing to release the recommendations of the Connie Curran report. He refused today in the House to provide the recommendations of the advisory committee to the minister to study home care.
Let us discuss that for a second, Mr. Chairperson. The minister two years ago set up an advisory committee on home care. He was given a broad mandate to examine home care and to make recommendations. I might add, the recommendations for advisory committee and the appeal panel came from us in the New Democratic Party, but, when I queried the minister several years ago about the committee, he said, these advisory committees will make available advice to the government, and then, rather than try to tell them what their advice ought to be, as the honourable member seems to suggest, I think we should show a little respect for the process and hear from the advisory council.
I am asking the minister, let us have a little respect for the process. The chairperson at that committee, or one of the members of that committee, has been widely quoted as saying, and I will quote: that they were not given the opportunity to comment on the contracting out, on the privatization until after the decision had been made by government.
Then they were asked to provide comments. I want to quote from that same person who said: we have felt that we have received documents late. Obviously, the whole plan to go private went to Treasury Board before we ever saw it. We did not think that that would be the process, so we spent a year and a half trying to convince the minister often that we need to be in the loop of consultation, so we are not quite sure what we will be doing in the future.
So, Mr. Chairperson, the advisory committee is kept out of the decision process, the advisory committee that was set up with a mandate. I will quote from the minister. The mandate from the minister identifies service delivery issues or concerns: monitor emerging trends in new models of service, identify options for improving current delivery systems, consult as requested with relevant organizations and potential program development initiatives; participate in subcommittees and working groups; assess the nature and trends of client initiative service reviews.
The minister’s own committee that was set up to examine was not provided with the information to review home care. What is worse, when in fact they were given the information about privatization, late and after a decision had been made, they made a report. The minister has the report, and the minister is refusing to make it public, together with the recommendations from Connie Curran, together with all of the other studies. What does the minister rely on? The minister relies on a report 10 years ago from Price Waterhouse that said: Manitoba illustrates one of the best long-term care systems in the North America, so is it any wonder that we are in the situation we are in today of a strike when the minister has--and the minister said to me, have respect for the process.
Where is the process? Where is the opportunity for even the minister’s own advisory committee to provide input into this decision making, let alone members of the Legislative Chamber, let alone members of the public, let alone caregivers, let alone the clients of the home care system? Where has that input been? It has not. It begs the question, why the government is continuing on its path of privatization with no regard whatsoever to the public and their concerns. It asks the question, what is the government afraid of? Why are they afraid to come forward with information, with documentation to justify their decision? I again suggest to the minister, if you can put forward arguments that can convince the public, should you not be doing that? I mean, enough. We do not have to trade insults back and forth. The minister can simply forward documents and forward information that justifies his decision, and we will let the public decide. Let that information be debated in the Chamber or in this committee. Let that information be debated in the newspapers and on the open line show. Let that information go out to the public. But that information is not forthcoming.
What is forthcoming and what we are now seeing is a public relations campaign that is commencing tomorrow to tell the public all of the good things about health care. I have a great deal of difficulty with that, in the midst of what we are going through, that the government would have the audacity to spend that much money on a public relations campaign, and we will get to that during the course of these Estimates debate, but I guess my question to the minister is one that says, what is the minister afraid of? Why is the minister reluctant to provide us with the information concerning the government’s plan to privatize home care? Why is the minister afraid to put that documentation forward and allow the public to make a judgment?
After all, it is still a democracy. The public still has a right to know and has a right to decide on this particular issue. If the minister’s position is as strong as he suggests, then let him put the information forward. Let him come forward. Let him table the Connie Curran recommendations. Let him table his health advisory report. Let him table the list of individuals, groups, organizations and others that he consulted with before he decided to privatize.
What are the minister and the government afraid of in this regard on the home care privatization front?
Mr. McCrae: Absolutely nothing, Mr. Chairman. The advisory committee made the report or comment or whatever you want to call it to me, and I have learned that that report may or may not represent a consensus of the committee.
That is an important thing for me to say, so that I can tell the honourable member that if he wants to see that report, he can ask the committee, and the committee is going to have to look at this, because if the committee has not--[interjection] Well, since I got the report, I have learned that that may or may not reflect the consensus of the committee.
So I would like to know about that before I decide to give it to the members, because the members of the committee might not appreciate my putting out a report that does not reflect the consensus of the committee. That is something I am working on right now to find out.
* (1720)
But in any event, I have made no secret and the chair of the committee has made no secret either that she does not believe that there ought to be a privatized home care system. Well, I do not either. I never have and it never has been privatized in the sense that honourable members opposite are talking about. It has always been privatized in the sense of some service delivery so, you see, we are playing little word games, and the member, because he has nothing whatever to criticize our government for, plays word games. He did it during the election campaign. The health policy of his party and ours looked an awful lot alike by the time you look at the total policy and, in terms of implementation, there is not much difference there either.
So what do we do? We sort of around the edges have a debate, which really does not take us anywhere, not when New Democrats are engaged in it, because if it does not work to the benefit of their union boss friends, there is no point in having it in any event. That is where they are coming from. It is lock step, organic fusion every day, joined at the head or whatever you call it, and the bully intimidation mentality is certainly apparent amongst New Democrats and their union boss friends, and so they use this place as a place to reflect the will of their--I guess they are their bosses too because, as I said earlier, if there is ever any question about who is more important, the people of Manitoba or their union boss friends, their union boss friends win every time. If you need any evidence for that, go out into the homes of some of our home care clients today and you will see what I am talking about, Mr. Chairman, and it is a very disturbing thing to see.
I am talking about intimidating workers and threatening that they are going to have their income taken away from them by the union. It has already got their hands in their pockets, and now they are going to say, we are going to take more of your hard-earned money because you are not doing what we tell you to do.
This is the way New Democrats and union bosses work. That is the way it is done, intimidate people and force your way. Never mind that democracy is supposed to be a part of our way of life here in Canada, just force people to do things against their will.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the Price Waterhouse report--the member is always asking about reports. See, he does not want to hear about the Price Waterhouse report because it was commissioned by his colleagues. No doubt the union bosses were part of that too, because there is a reference on page viii to unionization. I guess they could not force Price Waterhouse to write everything they wanted to hear, because it said that the impending unionization of direct-service workers will also have major short- and long-term cost implications for the program. Now, I wonder what that means. Maybe the member can explain what that means, because I thought unions were, they claim, to be competitive and all of that sort of thing. So maybe the honourable member can elucidate on the parameters of his extensive knowledge on this particular matter.
Anyway, the report goes on. In the area of client services the review identified that program policies concerning the provision of supplies discouraged clients from assuming responsibility for their own self-care. In addition, potential overservicing, and hence overspending, was identified in relation to clients receiving only housekeeping services. There was also evidence of higher levels of servicing where VON was responsible for care planning and case management. The review noted that in some regions there was limited or no access to certain services because such services had not been developed or because of shortages of particular categories of professionals.
This is what--as the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) said yesterday, when he said, go back to the system we had in the first place. That is what he wants us to go back to, Mr. Chairman, those sorts of problems that are in the program.
Now, this report also says, and it quotes others as saying, this is a very good program. Well, nobody is taking issue with that. I am certainly not. But the honourable member would have you believe, Mr. Chairman--and I do not think you are going to be fooled quite so easily by the New Democrats--but they would like you to believe that what is happening in Manitoba is somehow not an improvement to our Home Care program. So, being New Democrats, the only thing their minds can figure out is, well, go back to what we had in the first place because there is nothing like the good old days. Well, the good old days--the member gave the VON a very large insult yesterday by speaking so disparagingly about the contribution that the VON has made to the Home Care program in our province, which I am not going to do. But there are issues with the VON as well.
I will continue with the Price Waterhouse report. The review also established that when home care service costs are calculated to determine whether they are less than those of alternative forms of care, significant costs such as case management, daycare, respite care, equipment and supplies are not taken into account. In many cases, instances, home care costs actually exceed the costs of alternative forms of care. This is what the honourable member wants us to go back to, these instances.
One of the fundamental service conditions of the program is not being followed due to the lack of consideration of all cost. Now, the member says yesterday, it is the cheapest and the best, ignoring all the other what Price Waterhouse had to say about that, and others have ignored that, too. I know that Dr. Shapiro has said that this is a cheap program, but I dare say she probably did not take into account what Price Waterhouse has had to say about case management, daycare, respite care, equipment and supplies not taken into account .[interjection] Yes, I know that Dr. Shapiro is on the Implementation Committee. The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) would have you believe I do not know that Dr. Shapiro is now part of the Implementation Committee. Dr. Shapiro has played an important role in the development of home care, but this is not 20 years ago. This is 1996, Mr. Chairman--
Mr. Chomiak: Why do you restrict yourself to a 10-year-old report? Is that not a little logically inconsistent?
Mr. McCrae: Not really. The member asks if it is logically inconsistent. He said yesterday, go back to the system we had in the first place. I mean, he has got to be accountable and responsible for the things he says, and his colleagues, like a bunch of trained seals, were just all over themselves trying to applaud this particular statement that we should go back to yesteryear, go back to those hidebound days when New Democrats reigned supreme along with their union bosses in the caucus room on a regular basis, being told what to do by their union boss friends.
Why are they so frightened of these union bosses? Why do they not have a mind of their own? Why do they let the people of Manitoba be ruled by paid union bosses? Because they are bought and paid for? Could that be the reason? Well, check the records. I think you will find not only a fusion that is just biological, but you might find a monetary fusion somewhere along the line, too, if we are looking for sinister little signs of things.
It boggles the mind how much money unions--I am going to have to see if I can find some information about this for our next meeting, Mr. Chairman, so we can talk about how much the members of the New Democratic Party are in the pockets of the union bosses of this province, just to what extent and to what length they will go to serve the ends of their masters in the union movement.
Mr. Chomiak: It is ironic that the minister would make comments about the VON when, in fact, the privatization plan would virtually destroy VON as we know it in the city of Winnipeg. It is ironic and I hope the people reading this in Hansard from VON will recognize that.
My question to the minister is, can the minister outline for us, please, how many staff from the Department of Health are now providing services in an advocacy role, as termed by government, to home care clients, how many staff from other departments are involved with providing “advocacy services” to home care clients, what levels those staff are, what the conditions are concerning the work that they are doing in the community with respect to home care? What kind of training is being offered or will be offered to those staff people from both the Department of Health and other government departments that have or will be seconded to do this kind of work, and what kind of provisions with respect to the conditions of work have been applied? What kind of standards and regulations and follow-up will be provided?
I notice my time is up, and I will continue--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Kildonan’s time is not up at this point. I believe we have approximately eight minutes left.
However, the time being 5:30 p.m., committee rise.