4th-36th Vol. 52-Oral Questions

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon thirty-seven Grade 5 students from Beaumont School under the direction of Mrs. Kim Burnett. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger).

Also, sixty Grade 5 students from Garden Grove School under the direction of Mr. Jim Lapp. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). On May 15 of this year, the Minister of Health stated that he was going to impose a fee schedule on the MMA, in fact on services including obstetricians, and he called the MMA irrelevant and made a number of other comments. On May 22, the same Minister of Health flip-flopped on his position on negotiations and said that he would in fact allow for partial arbitration of the issues before the doctors.

Madam Speaker, it is very puzzling for the public and certainly patients and families that have to go through the uncertainty of the situation to have the flip-flop nature of the Minister of Health in his negotiations with the doctors. I would like to ask the Premier: did the Premier give his Minister of Health a mandate to impose a fee schedule against the so-called irrelevant MMA, and did he reverse that mandate in the partial arbitration announcement a week later?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. It is regrettable that the current status of negotiations with doctors through the MMA is where it is today, but a lot of it has to do with the number and a long history, but more importantly, with the fact that this is not collective bargaining like any other. We had an agreement with physicians that expired this March, yet during the life of that agreement, on many occasions physicians withdrew services looking for additional remuneration, which would not be able to happen in any other relationship.

My reference to the MMA was with the difficulty one has when you do have an agreement or you are attempting to negotiate one, the inability of the organization to ensure physicians continue to provide services on the basis of that agreement, or while you are negotiating, seeing withdrawals of services across the province, which would not be allowed under The Labour Relations Act unless in fact you had a full strike. Those are the comments that I made.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: It sounds like another flip-flop to me, Madam Speaker, in terms of what he has done. Perhaps the Minister of Health would try to build responsible partnerships with providers of health care instead of alternately insulting them and changing his position from day to day. It is better to build long-term partnerships to retain and recruit doctors in Manitoba, rather than engaging in insults, which is easy to do but hard to, over the long haul, maintain medical services for our patients.

The government has identified that it would now go and put some items before an arbitrator and some other items would not be available to an arbitrator. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): will he provide that all items in dispute be available to be dealt with through arbitration, all items so that we can have the withdrawal of services for future patients, that uncertainty removed from families here in Manitoba?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, there is no one more than I who would have liked to have seen a different approach to bargaining at this particular time. In fact, over the last year I have worked very, very hard with my staff, with my Associate Deputy Minister Roberta Ellis to build relationships, particularly with Dr. Ian White, and because of that building of relationships we managed to settle emergency issues, both rurally and in Winnipeg, as well as issues that evolved over the year with intenseness.

Regrettably this spring, Mr. John LaPlume and the MMA took a course of action where they basically said to the province they wanted $7 million up front, whether they were entitled to it or not under an old agreement, and took us off the course on which we embarked, and that is very regrettable. Quite frankly, over the last number of months we have continually been forced to respond, either proactively or reactively, to a host of service withdrawals that the MMA has encouraged across the province, and we have done that to put patients first. It is not the best way to bargain, but it is the way that we have been forced into by the actions of the executive director of the MMA and their board.

Madam Speaker, I would like to table a letter today that I think clarifies the issues that the member for Concordia has referenced.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, our Health critic has asked questions about the insulting comments that the Minister of Health has made about nurses and nurses organizations. We have read weekly the insulting comments and personal attacks of this minister, and we believe the long-term solution to recruitment and retention of health care professionals in Manitoba, whether they are doctors or nurses or health care staff across this province, is to build a relationship, a partnership in respect, not the kind of political rhetoric we see from this minister.

I asked a very simple question to the minister. For the sake of families who are facing a withdrawal of obstetrical services for new patients, will the Minister of Health agree to put all items in dispute before a binding arbitration panel? Surely that is in the best interests of the patients, and therefore it is in the best interest of this Legislature.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I have not been insulting to physicians or nurses. Just because from time to time I will take issue when any health care provider or physician withdraws services and puts Manitoba patients at risk does not mean one is insulting, nor when one gives a reflection on a course of action that may not meet the agreement of that particular group.

Madam Speaker, in the letter that I have tabled before the House, I think we make it very clear that the two issues that we indicated we were not prepared at this time to go before an arbitrator were issues that ran across all categories of physicians, not just obstetricians. They were the after-hour premium which we have announced, beginning July 1, will be there for all physicians across the province, a 30 percent increase in fee, and the second has to do with medical malpractice insurance.

I can confirm today that the some $6,000-per-obstetrician-fee increase that is expected this year will be paid for by the province, and that is in this letter.

* (1350)

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne.

Mr. Doer: Excuse my intervention here, to the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), but the minister is supposed to table three copies of any letter. That is our rule. We are asking the table for a copy of that letter so we can read it, can ask questions. I would like the Minister of Health, as a courtesy, to table three copies so the Clerk's office can provide us a copy of those letters. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. I omitted to table these two copies.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): It just goes to show how open and helpful the honourable Minister of Health is that he is doing that. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has it wrong. As I understand the procedures here, ministerial tablings and so on at the time of tabling of documents usually entail three copies. The members on the honourable member's own side of the House daily in Question Period table one copy of matters that they put before the House. So, on a point of order, for the honourable Leader of the Opposition to make that point is totally incorrect, but I thank him for doing so because all he has done is pointed out how courteous the Minister of Health is.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable opposition Leader, all members in the Chamber, when tabling documents, are to indeed provide three copies of all materials being tabled.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, last week the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) raised the issue of Manitoba institutions using unlicensed blood products imported from the United States, specifically from the Alpha Therapeutic company, a company which we now learn is in court for regulatory violations in the production of blood products.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health, in light of this new information, in light of AIDS, in light of hepatitis, in light of individual and family suffering, if he is going to continue to wash his hands of this matter, or will he take some initiative, show some respect for the lives of Manitobans and tell us what he is doing here in Manitoba to ensure the safety of unlicensed blood products.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we have discussed this in the House on a number of occasions and, again, for the benefit of the member for Osborne, the regulation of the safety of pharmaceuticals, food products and blood products in this country rests with Health and Welfare Canada, with the federal government. They are the agency that is equipped with the staff, resources and expertise, and they have the mandate constitutionally to do that.

Within the Department of Health in Manitoba, our director of Public Health, Dr. Greg Hammond, deals with our relationship with Health and Welfare Canada, gathers information for me, and I am advised, through his inquiries as a physician, as the director of Public Health for Manitoba, that these particular products have met the safety standards of Health and Welfare Canada. The particular infractions that she refers to have to deal with training, computer security, record-keeping facilities and investigation within that organization and not with the manufacturer quality of that product.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, infractions are infractions, and I would like to ask this minister, who well knows that the largest trauma treatment in the province, the Health Sciences Centre, is using unlicensed human serum-albumin 100 percent of the time, to investigate and unveil very shortly a plan of action that will assure all Manitobans of their safety.

* (1355)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, considering the product is not available within the country and is imported, and considering that the regulatory body, the national government, has done their work and is allowing the product into the country, I imagine what the member is suggesting is we no longer make the product available with the attending consequences. Those consequences could be very serious. They potentially could result in someone's death. Is that what the member is suggesting to us?

The member well knows that the Canadian Blood Services is in the process of being set up by us as provinces, is unlikely to be operational as a provincial trust agency until later on in the fall. So, Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the member is proposing that because of the fear which she is engendering when the regulator is not requiring that the product not be provided in Canada, is she suggesting that we not allow its use in our hospitals with the resulting death or injury that could take place?

Ms. McGifford: It sounds like déjà vu. I am sure this speech was made about hepatitis C, too.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne, with a final supplementary question.

Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask this minister and his government if he plans to tell Manitobans, who may in the future suffer the consequences of infected blood acquired through unlicensed human serum-albumin, that he is very sorry but there is no compensation because it was the federal government's fault. That is what he is doing with hepatitis C. Is this the plan?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the alternative to what the member is suggesting is we say to those people who may die because they do not get it that the member for Osborne does not want you to have this product, even though the federal regulatory agency says that it is allowable and usable in our facilities, because she insists that you not get it. That today may be the very real choice that health care providers are facing. The member talks about the past in blood. Yes, there is a history with the Red Cross certainly, and if the Canadian Red Cross has not learned from that problem in their current operations, then we should shut down the whole blood supply system today entirely and give no one blood. We know in the future as well there will be and always will be risk with blood, some risk. I would expect though that those who provide blood are making those who receive it aware of the risks, which has not always been the case in the past.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, we have had an opportunity to review the minister's letter, a missile, I suppose, back to the MMA with respect to the negotiations. That is what it has become when the minister makes unilateral decisions on Friday afternoons, as he has done on successive Friday afternoons and flip-flops on positions. How do you negotiate when you do not listen, when you do not sit down at the table? [interjection]

Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) can inform the House: how can we have negotiation of this matter when the first paragraph of the minister's letter indicates that the offer to the MMA was the unilateral offer made by the minister when he said the MMA was irrelevant and he was going to impose a settlement? He has gone back to that in this letter.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, you know, it is very interesting. The member talks about unilateral decisions, and I could not agree with him more. It was unilateral when, contrary to the existing contract on fee for service we had in place, many rural doctors withdrew their services last spring. It would have been a unilateral decision if several of our physicians under fee for service in Winnipeg would have withdrawn their services last fall. It would have been unilateral when internists last winter threatened to withdraw services. It was unilateral when pediatricians in Brandon withdrew their services. It was unilateral when obstetricians in Brandon withdrew their services, and considering today that there is no strike, it is unilateral when obstetricians withdraw their services.

So, Madam Speaker, the reality of the framework in which doctors and governments negotiate is it is not collective bargaining in the form that we are all familiar with, and we are always dealing with unilateral decisions and withdrawals of service. It was the priority of this government to get in and deal with problems on a basis that would prevent withdrawals of service, and we will continue to do that.

* (1400)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain why the government is refusing to put the matters before binding arbitration if in fact we are interested in helping the million people of Manitoba, and not be involved in the constant fights between this minister, his insults to the MMA and the MMA on the other side? When will he stand up for Manitobans and put this matter before binding arbitration?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, continually the member talks about insults. If it is insulting to take actions to protect mothers and patients and the citizens of Manitoba, then I will be insulting because I will always put patients first.

I appreciate, because many things are going on currently, that he just had a chance to read the letter. We have indicated we will put obstetrical fees to binding arbitration. The two issues are province-wide, are across all doctors. We have indicated that, if they are not settled at the bargaining table for all doctors, we would agree that those items also for obstetricians would go to binding arbitration. So I do not know where the member is coming from. It is in that letter.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister. Can the minister explain how in this province we are going to negotiate settlements with nurses that are coming up--obviously we are in the middle of negotiations with doctors--when the minister takes unilateral action, insults the doctors and the negotiators, has insulted the nurses by comparing them to people that are in Beirut or the Middle East, has insulted the board of many of the hospitals by acting unilaterally? When will we get to the state in this province when we can start sitting down and talking and working with the people that are in our health care system and not attacking them, and dealing with the people of Manitoba to get the health care they deserve?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, with respect to nurses, first of all, nurses have collective agreements. There are processes under The Labour Relations Act that do not apply in our negotiations with doctors. They do not come under the act, and we do not have a collective agreement. Nurses, when they enter into an agreement, live up to it. We have not seen illegal walkouts or strikes by nurses.

Madam Speaker, with reference to insulting and dealing with health care workers, I have been in this House as Minister of Health for a year and a half, and I remember in my early months here as Minister of Health, the member for Kildonan continually asked me about settling disputes between LPNs and R.N.s. And what did we do? We put them in a room together; we developed a process to sort out the turf wars that are there. We also put in the room the purchasers of their services and the RHAs, and what we were trying to do is achieve a peace in those professions that has not been there in reality for quite a number of years.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, on Friday, a Child and Family Services supervisor told the baby Sophia inquest that he was responsible for 350 open cases, the sum total of eight workers handling 40 to 45 cases each. The Child Welfare League of America recommends workers handle no more than 10 to 17 cases. They also recommend that, because supervision is critical to effective service delivery, the ratio of social workers to supervisors not exceed five to one.

My question for the Minister of Family Services is: two years after the death of baby Sophia, the ratios continue to be one to eight workers, each of whom have caseloads that are four times higher than is recommended, and this doubles when supervisors are away. What is this Minister of Family Services doing about this ongoing situation that she has been aware of since the death of baby Sophia?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it does provide me with the opportunity to indicate that we have significantly increased our funding to Winnipeg Child and Family Services year after year after year, Madam Speaker, to ensure that they have the resources available to do their jobs. I do know that under new leadership in the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency they are going through a strategic planning process. The new CEO of Winnipeg Child and Family Services is taking a look at absolutely everything that is going on in the system, looking to try to ensure that the needs of children and protection of children are first and foremost in their minds at Winnipeg Child and Family.

Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to table three copies of a letter from the Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers and the Manitoba Association of Social Workers, a letter that this minister has had for some time. It is dated November 13, 1997. I would like to ask the minister why she has not responded in a proactive way to the request in this letter to address workload terms, adequate staffing and worker-to-supervisor ratios. When will she institute a comprehensive workload audit? She has had this request since November '97. When is she going to respond to this request?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again I have to indicate to my honourable friend that Winnipeg Child and Family Services is an externally funded and managed agency in the city of Winnipeg to deal with the issues around child protection.

Madam Speaker, I indicated in my first answer, and I will indicate again--[interjection] If the rude person on the opposite side of the House might stop--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Continually, the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) chirps from her seat. I gave my honourable friend the critic for Family Services the opportunity to ask the question without interference or without rude comments, and I would ask the member for Wellington to afford me the same opportunity.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister was raising that on a point of order, because it would certainly not be in order to continue at length on what supposedly is an answer to a question. I would like to ask you to call the minister to order and perhaps remind her that time is limited in the House, and that is why we have specific rules about answers being relevant to questions. If the minister is concerned about the comments made by any member of this side, the minister can raise it in a point of order and not waste the time of Question Period.

Madam Speaker: The Minister of Family Services, on the same point of order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: On the same point of order, I will indicate to the member for Thompson that I possibly should have raised it as a point of order. I just want him to know that very often we hear from the member for Wellington very rude comments hurled across this House, across the floor when people are trying to respond to questions. I do not think it is very becoming, and I would ask that you take my comments under the point of order under consideration and ask her to try to control herself.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I believe the honourable Minister of Family Services clarified that indeed she should have raised it as a point of order. I would ask for the co-operation of all honourable members in this House to treat each other with courtesy, and when a member is either posing a question or responding to a question that the other members listen attentively.

Mr. Martindale: Is the Minister of Family Services saying in her previous response that, because it is an arm's-length organization, she is not responsible, even though the government provides a hundred percent of the funding and she has been called to action by workers, by the Children's Advocate, by her own internal report and the Institute of Registered Social Workers, and her government continues to allow dangerously high caseloads of ratios of workers to families? When is she going to do something about it so that more families are not put at risk and we do not have further deaths because of this problem?

Mrs. Mitchelson: As I was trying to answer in the previous question, Madam Speaker, I have indicated that our government has continued to increase the support and increase the funding to Winnipeg Child and Family Services, and the millions and millions of dollars--we have more than doubled their budget since we have been in government. We have given them the money that they have requested to do their job.

I know that the new CEO at Winnipeg Child and Family has just gone through a strategic planning process and is looking to see how services can be improved. I am anticipating and expecting that we will see positive results as a result of that exercise at the Winnipeg agency.

* (1410)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, on the way to the office this morning I was listening to one of our local radio stations, and I was listening to an eight-month pregnant lady who was obviously very, very concerned about the threat of a withdrawal of services, and justifiably so in terms of what has been happening with respect to the media and the discussion with respect to it.

My question, specific to the Minister of Health: is he prepared to give assurances to the public today that this government will not accept in any fashion a withdrawal of services in this particular area?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, for me to give the assurance that the member for Inkster wishes, I would have to have the assurance of this House that it would be prepared to legislate doctors to remain in their service. I am not in a position to guarantee that any independent physician who bills on fee for service will or will not provide service. I can assure the member that it has been our intention, since the MMA informed us this winter that they intended to encourage withdrawal of service across the province in various areas, to do what had to be done to minimize these and ensure that we had the minimal disruption to service to patients in our province. We will continue to do so.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what we ask the Minister of Health to do is to recognize this as an essential service--

An Honourable Member: Question, question.

Mr. Lamoureux: To the Premier (Mr. Filmon), it is a question, a very sensitive question that deserves a proper answer. My question, specific to the Minister of Health is: will he deem this as an essential service and recognize that it is not acceptable that withdrawal of services is in the best interests of our patients in the province of Manitoba and indicate that the government of the day will not accept a withdrawal of services?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member may be referring to The Essential Services Act which can be invoked in a number of situations. That is not applicable in this case for fee-for-service physicians, so I do not have the legal power to do that. If the member is suggesting that this Legislature entertain providing the government with the legal power to do that, that is certainly a very different question than one that has been entertained by us today.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Madam Speaker, my question, then, to the Minister of Health: is he, as Minister of Health, looking into the possibility of bringing what legislation would be required in order to give the assurances to those who are expecting that that service is going to be provided and is going to be first-class service? I think that the patients of Manitoba are owed that from this minister.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, one thing I do not believe that you can do is to, by law, force any professional to give their absolute best service or commitment to continue to work. You can force them perhaps back to their work, but I just say to the member that we have recognized as a government that there is a host of areas in our fee schedule. Let us not forget that the MMA has had the power of allocation in that fee schedule, so many of the areas they must take responsibility for, and we are attempting to address those.

It is interesting to note that of the 53, I believe, obstetricians in the province, only 30 or less are withdrawing service, so even the MMA is not speaking for all of them in the province.

The Minister of Health has repeatedly promised the people of Misericordia Hospital an urgent care centre as part of the conversion plans, and while most people oppose the closure of this great hospital, they were prepared to at least have an open mind about an urgent care centre that might be there to meet their needs. Now it appears that there is not even going to be an urgent care centre.

Will the minister confirm that it is now to be a nonurgent care centre? In other words, if you are really sick in the middle of the morning, at two in the morning, and it is not urgent, you can go there but it is a nonurgent care centre. Will he confirm that?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, no, I will not confirm that.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I want to quote from the dialogue of the Winnipeg Hospital Authority newsletter: Misericordia Hospital emergency converted to a 24-hour nonurgent primary care centre. The people of that area do not need another walk-in clinic. I will table--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood, to pose his question now.

Mr. Sale: Will he now commit to tell the Winnipeg Hospital Authority that this is not acceptable, that an urgent care centre is what is required, not a nonurgent care centre, that it must have diagnostic and short-stay holding facilities and be a real 24-hour emergency care centre that provides urgent care at a high level and not simply a walk-in clinic?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, when the discussions with Misericordia took place, it was the commitment of this government and the Winnipeg Hospital Authority to ensure that we developed a primary care centre with an urgency capacity. We in fact would hope that that facility would be able to provide relief during the flu epidemic and a host of other things because of its central location. In fact, we have even identified that particular site--if it should work--in our discussions with Misericordia, for the sexual assault receiving area.

So the detail of how this will be put together is a part of what the implementation teams are working on, but the commitment of this government was for a primary urgency care centre, and that is what we intend to build, despite the comments from the member for Crescentwood.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the First Minister.

Last week, in explaining his grant to Headingley, more than $5 million of water project money, he said that "In the interests of a clean and sustainable environment, those services need to be provided today or in the near future." Then he also said "The servicing is required for those homes that exist today and have existed for decades in that area."

Now, if he indeed believes that sewer and water service is essential--and I agree with him wholeheartedly; I do not begrudge Headingley getting anything that they need--my question to him is: why has he not attempted to get a single federal-provincial northern infrastructure agreement in the 10 years that he has been in office through two successive federal governments?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We continue to work with the federal government to provide for funding for various different initiatives in northern Manitoba. If he is referring to various initiatives on reserve, on First Nations communities, even there he may recall that when Jerry Storie was the member for Flin Flon at the time, he raised the matter with the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) to ensure that there was funding provided for Pukatawagan for sewer and water. We are certainly supportive of it and continue to urge our federal government to provide for sewer and water--[interjection] The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) seems to have all the answers today, Madam Speaker. I will let her stand up and give them.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I just have one more question for the First Minister, and that is I wonder if the First Minister would be able to tell us what the benefits would have been in terms of health care prevention had he acted 10 years ago instead of the minimal annual amount his government has put into capital projects in Northern Affairs communities.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, there has not been a government in the history of this province that has put more money into northern Manitoba, particularly as it applies to First Nations communities--things like the hydro for north-central communities in northern Manitoba, almost a $1-million project; settlement of two and a half decades outstanding agreements on Northern Flood Agreement that involved hundreds of millions of dollars; pouring of $30 million into settlements with respect to outstanding issues on tax collection that have gone right into improving dramatically the living conditions and giving money directly to the people in northern Manitoba; entering into agreements on gaming that provide, I believe, to his former First Nation, something in the range of $5 million a year in additional funding there; things that could not be done when the New Democrats were in government because they refused to settle any of those matters; transference now underway of a million acres of land to our First Nations communities.

These are all things that New Democrats would not or could not settle that this government has done, and they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars of benefit to northern Manitoba natives.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I would like to table three copies of a letter from the Burntwood Health Authority which outlines the concern, and by the way, this is from a health district along with The Pas and Flin Flon that have been the hardest hit by cutbacks in northern hospitals over the last number of years. They express concern about the fact that Manitoba Health announced in February that it is not proceeding with the population health-needs-based funding formula. Just coincidentally, that would have dealt with one of the major problems with funding for northern hospitals, the fact that our patients need higher degrees of care.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for Health whether he has met with the Burntwood Health Authority, as was their request in February of this year, and if he can explain to this House and the Burntwood Health Authority why the population health-needs-based funding formula is not proceeding.

* (1420)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): First of all, I have opportunity to meet on a very regular basis with the chairs and CEOs of all health authorities across the province, and the discussions of this winter were some revisions. That should not affect the goal that the member is talking about. Obviously, we want to ensure that health authorities have the resources to meet the needs in their particular area and we are moving towards that. Where the refinement, of course, was is that those health authorities will have to be able to meet standards that are province-wide in the services that they provide, that they will not have necessarily a carte blanche in what services they provide. They still have to provide home care, they still have to provide basics of services that are designated to be provided in their areas, and we would hope that over the next number of years, as we evolve our funding formula, the kind of issue that the member brings to this table will in fact be met.

Mr. Ashton: Why will the minister not acknowledge that, in the letter, the health authority expressed its grave concern about this unilateral change in Manitoba Health's policy and its impact on northern Manitoba? When are we going to get action to improve the funding of northern hospitals, not in time but now when our northern hospitals need it?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, the only real change is there was a perception on the part of some that the new funding method would give a carte blanche amount of money, based on a formula, to each regional health authority who would then have almost carte blanche control over how it would be spent. That could have resulted in different levels of home care service across the province to individuals, different services being offered than we would require as a provincial government in terms of bringing as many services as possible to people at the local level.

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member, in the meetings that I have, various issues are being addressed in northern Manitoba, approval for funding for clinics, discussions that we are hoping to get underway with First Nations. There is a lot of good work going on, on its way to improve a number of the issues that he raises, but if the member is advocating that we just divide the pot into 13 different segments and say to each health authority: you will determine whether or not your people have home care or you have this or you have that, that would be very irresponsible, and that is what this issue is really about.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, Brandon University students face a 10 percent fee increase, and the university expects a 9 percent decrease in enrollment with no corresponding increase at the community college.

This has become the pattern of Tory policy, Madam Speaker, going in exactly the opposite direction in post-secondary education than the European community or many American states. I would like to ask the minister to tell the House whether this is the deliberate post-secondary policy of the government, or is it simply a result of the continuing inability of this minister to develop a tuition fee policy for young Manitobans?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Yes, Madam Speaker, this question has been asked, has been answered. It was not, unfortunately, asked in Estimates but has been asked in Question Period.

Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the member that the tuition fee policy has undergone two stages at this point. I have to backtrack and point out that, during the legislation being formed on the Council on Post-Secondary Education, the one thing the member stressed and with which I agreed was that there be consultation with students on a variety of things. That is mandated. Currently, the tuition fee policy, which was drafted first by the interim transition committee and then forwarded to the council once it was formed, has been now examined by the council and is presently going through the consultation process with students. It should be ready for announcement in the fall in time for next year's tuition. I have explained this to the member before.

I also indicate, Madam Speaker, that her lead into the question about the state of universities in Manitoba left a very false impression on the record which, if you give me the opportunity in subsequent questions, I will answer.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister explain why, as she refers to it as she has in the House previously, this massive--her words--consultation with students? When I asked students what this massive consultation means, it means that they were in effect asked over a year ago to make a presentation to this committee. It is a year later. There is no massive consultation, and there is no tuition fee policy. Will the minister tell us when she intends to rectify that?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, let me explain, again, to the member--through you, Madam Speaker, to her. About a year and a half ago, we formed an interim transition committee. To that committee we--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Between the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), it is very difficult to give courteous answers in the House.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: Your comments were called for, and his certainly were not. Madam Speaker--

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, and I rise on a similar point of order to the point of order I raised before, although I would suggest that the Minister of Education went far further than the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). I do not think she would even have had a point of order, let alone answering questions.

For the record, all I had said from the floor was question whether this ad hoc committee was an interim ad hoc committee. I thought the term "interim committee" that she referred--"interim transition committee" was rather a puzzling one. But the main point is to ask the Minister of Education for once to answer the question asked by our opposition critic, the member for Wolseley.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, it is an interesting strategy. You create disorder and then find a way so that you can rise and complain about the disorder in the House, and that is what happens sometimes. Honourable members in the New Democratic Party have a tendency to create disorder in our daily Question Period.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, first, I would remind the honourable member for Thompson that it is not an opportunity when raising a point of order to clarify the record in what one has said. The second point could be determined a point of order where he asked that the minister respond to the question asked, and indeed I will concur that that is a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable minister, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I welcome the chance to answer the question. As I explained to the member on many previous occasions, the interim transition committee was charged with the task of forming the council, the council we knew would ultimately be asked to form a tuition fee policy. To ready the council for that purpose, a subcommittee of the committee was formed. On that committee sat students, sat the president of the Manitoba Students' Union of the University of Manitoba, sat the president of the college--the student union at the college as well. They formed a formula; they prepared a formula which was presented to the committee when it was ready--the council, rather. The council has looked at that--[interjection].

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: I believe he is saying a lot more, Madam Speaker, than he said he said. However--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister, to quickly complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In short, a committee made a recommendation for the council. The council will now begin its consultation which takes place this summer, as I explained to the member on numerous occasions. The council now has to do its consulting, and that, as I have told the member before on numerous occasions, should be ready in the fall.

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much more clear I can make it. It is a two-stage process that does involve massive student consultation, and I am sorry that the members do not like that but--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.