Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): With respect to committees on Thursday morning at 10 a.m., that is October 10, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet to consider Bills 14, 15 and 39.
Madam Speaker, on Tuesday next, the 15th of October at 7 p.m., the Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet to consider Bill 54, The Municipal Act.
On Tuesday, October 15, at 7 p.m., the Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet to consider Bill 54.
Mr. Ernst: May we have a two-minute recess, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit a two-minute recess so the House leaders may discuss Orders of the Day? [agreed]
The House recessed at 2:54 p.m.
The House resumed at 2:57 p.m.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, it would appear that there is a problem with respect to next Tuesday evening for the Municipal Affairs committee, so that will not take place.
Madam Speaker: So the committee previously announced for Tuesday, October 15 at 7 p.m., Municipal Affairs will be cancelled.
Mr. Ernst: Would you call Bills 67, 17, 18, 26, 32 and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper?
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 67, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay), The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant la réorganisation de la Société de téléphone du Manitoba et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 17, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), The Government Essential Services Act (Loi sur les services gouvernementaux essentiels), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on Bill 18, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), The Payment of Wages Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le paiement des salaires), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 26, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), The Labour Relations Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 32, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act (Loi sur le Conseil de l'enseignement postsecondaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
To resume debate on--the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The honourable government House leader. [interjection] For a moment, I thought you wanted to debate.
* (1500)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Anytime the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) wants to debate, Madam Speaker, I am more than willing to debate him.
However, to make your job a little bit easier, I would suggest you call Bills 49, 70, 36 and 33 in that order.
Madam Speaker: Would the honourable minister please repeat that--49, 70--
Mr. Ernst: 49, 70, 36 and 33.
Madam Speaker: Thank you.
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 49, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), who has 27 minutes remaining.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I get to rise to speak to Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act, which basically will establish regional health authorities. I have comments specific to the bill, and I also have some history that I wish to share in terms of the whole concept of centralization versus decentralization.
The concept of decentralization is one that I support. However, it would be evidenced by this bill, not one that this government is willing to take action on. In fact, it is a very serious debate. We can have a form of decentralization which actually empowers communities or we could have what is presented as decentralization but, in reality, is not.
There are many arguments for and against this type of governance. Centralization can be an effective way of governing and decentralization can be an effective way of governing. The overwhelming reason sometimes for moving to decentralization is the fact that it removes the direct accountability of those who are responsible, in this case, the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and the Health department and this government that make the policies and financial decisions that will ultimately have to be carried out by the regional health boards. When those cuts come from the top, the people who will have to be accountable or part of it will then be diffused to the regional health boards.
The reason that this seems to be the overwhelming argument for this model is clear in the model presented by the bill, which does not provide any true local empowerment to the community; therefore, although it may look on the surface as if we are going to a decentralized, local empowerment model, in fact, what we are doing is centralizing power and diffusing some of the accountability, making it easier for the government to implement their drastic health cuts, the cuts of hospital beds, possibly closures of health facilities, and moving the responsibility of that from directly being on their table to the regional health boards.
Madam Speaker, locally I would like to talk about what I was familiar with in the Winnipeg School Division. We looked at a model of decentralization that included creating actually school advisory councils well before the government ever heard of such a thing, and it is fairly ironic that we see this government is taking up that model. Actually, in the education governance model, I would argue that in fact what they are doing is smoke and mirrors, that the local councils have virtually no power, and that in effect what they are doing is they are setting up another level of bureaucracy or another level of governance that really cannot be held accountable for those actions because they have no power to influence them.
But, when we looked at potentially decentralizing, the important question becomes, is the government prepared to turn over some of that power to local communities. Are they willing to, for example, look at elections? Are they willing to allow the community to select people that they have faith in? Unfortunately, when you look at the bill, that is not the case. In fact, what we have seen are the regional health boards being appointed and no evidence in this bill of future elections. A huge disappointment. Are they willing to actually empower local communities? Apparently not. That is a sincere disappointment, a critical factor that needs to be considered, and I am sure that this government has looked at the consequences. They want to have their people on the boards. They want to have the control. There are many other parts of this bill that are clearly centralizing, and that would be consistent with the overall philosophy, one of talking about decentralization, talking about local communities, but in reality making them scapegoats for what the government intends to do in terms of further health cuts, deregulation, user fees and breaking down our universal public health care system.
When governance is discussed, there are many agendas that can be played out, and the fear of some jurisdictions to moving towards decentralized power is not having the ability to basically control exactly what these local governments and, in this case, a local regional health board will do. In fact, the government can be criticized for being completely inconsistent. In fact, when we look at local governance, we saw a large debate for many years about the possibility of school divisions being amalgamated. The decision in that case was because, I believe, of a very strong lobby of local communities to stay those changes, to look for voluntary amalgamation, to try to deal with it in a more co-operative approach.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
What we see here is fairly arbitrary, decisions for boundaries on regional health authorities, massive boundaries which are going to be difficult to respond to local needs. What we see is a proposal that is before its time. We have not had the opportunity to discuss in detail as we did with schools boards and successfully argued against the government's so-called changes. What we have here is a bill being proposed that is going to force local boards and other health governance structures into a model that they are not ready to accept.
We have not had full debate. The government is anxious to bring forward legislation that is not well thought out, that is not ready to go on the books, that has not been consulted with the people in the community, and we are asking them to hold back. It pre-empts the process. What you have done is brought forward a piece of legislation that is not supported by the Manitoba Health Organizations, not supported by health care workers, not supported by the support workers in health care, not supported by the local governing boards of the hospitals here in rural Manitoba, not supported by the religious organizations that run the hospitals such as the Grace Hospital.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems to me the only people that do support this bill are sitting on that side of the House, and I would ask them to reflect on that. Give it some time. Allow the people of Manitoba to look at whether this is a model that is going to work. Apparently not. The government has not been successful in getting the partners in health to adopt this model, and indeed it raises serious concerns about the validity of this structure.
* (1510)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill will establish large--as I said, large--regional health boards, regional health authorities, and the boards which will basically govern these authorities. What it does in reality is add another level of bureaucracy, and that is a shame. We do not need to add further levels of bureaucracy. If you are trying to empower local communities, the goal is to make it more efficient and more effective, and the question would be whether this bill will in fact do that.
The bill itself also makes no provisions for elections of members, and the record for appointments has been dismal, to say the best. The number of female board members is woefully underrepresented. Accusations of political appointments mar the legitimacy of the process. In the North, we understand in a board of nine people, three are former Tory candidates. Even if this was by coincidence, it would seem highly unlikely that that was a legitimate process, but even if it was, it would raise the suspicion of doubt. That is surely not what this government wants. If it really believes this is a legitimate process, if this is a legitimate bill, that is exactly what it does not want to do. It does not want to be in a process where it is appointing certain people that may not represent the community.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, although the minister tries to assure the House that we did not have representation from aboriginal organizations or from women, I have to ask, in the North, 50 percent of the people in the North are female, and so I would ask that there would be some sort of justice, justice on the committee. What type of recruitment and searching was done to ensure that the boards were fairly representative of the people in the community?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not want to think that it was the Tory membership list that was consulted. No. You would like to consider that it was a sincere process, and one way of doing it is by trusting the people and allowing local elections. Something that this government is not prepared to do. Something that this government has no indication of putting in the bill, and something that Manitobans are asking for. We are very disappointed, and so is the Manitoba Health Organizations, which has presented its concerns forward to the health community and to the government.
The Manitoba Health Organizations is a nonprofit, nongovernment provincial organization of health agencies. I would like to quote from their report which basically sums up the bill as: The degree to which all decision making is centralized in the ministry appears to contravene the publicly stated position of the government to delegate decision making to regional health authorities.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, when a provincial organization that represents a broad spectrum of organizations and various workers comes out with such a strong statement, it was one that is weighed with considerable thought. This is an organization that must have some Tory members, probably fewer every day, but it is a representation of the whole province that is dealing with health care. So for an organization--I think it is particularly significant having worked with the provincial trustees association, having worked with other provincial organizations--to come out with such a strong condemnation of this bill and the implication that what it really does is centralize power and basically set up regional health boards is truly astonishing, because they want a working, sincere relationship with the government of the time. They want to co-operate and ensure that the legislation that we have before us will work, but the concerns that they express in their paper are sincere and are very serious.
Basically, the quote that I just read out talks about the smoke and mirrors that Bill 49 is actually purporting to do. It is centralizing power through a number of means, and I will discuss a little bit later, while at the same time pretending, or giving the illusion, that we are empowering local boards. What they have done is actually, probably, intensified or even centralized further the power of the minister and the government in terms of health care while diffusing the blame for the cuts that they are inevitably going to make, given their record, and they are going to diffuse the blame for the cuts and the problems to the regional boards.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, not only is that unjust, it is unfair. Regional health boards do not have the power to tax, and I am not one prepared to say that they should. Our health care system is supported by taxes, and it needs to be that way. It needs to be universal. There are principles that we believe in and share; the majority of Manitobans and Canadians believe in a universal health care system with the principles identified in the health care act.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we search in the bill for the principles to be upheld, and we wonder why they are not. Are they articulated in this bill? No. Should they be? Yes. Is this province committed to maintaining the principles of a universal health care system? We would hope so.
But the reason for it not being there is not by mistake. This bill has been constructed by the government, prepared, platformed for the people of Manitoba. It was not an omission by error. It is an omission by planning. That is not acceptable to Manitobans. That is not acceptable to this side of the House. We want a commitment, and we will ensure that Manitobans maintain a public health care system that is universally accessible.
One of the reasons to further question the sincerity of the government is that it actually has clauses speaking to fees. The question there being, what fees for what services are they talking about? Why are they articulating or not articulating what they speak of? The Manitoba Health Organizations has also clearly condemned this section of the bill, as it further facilitates to deinsure the health services in Manitoba.
One of the more ominous or scary parts of the bill is the provision of a commissioner, an appointment by the minister, or really by the government, a commissioner-czar who has been the story in the recent newspaper has discussed, a person who will be given extraordinary powers such that we have not seen in other legislation, and we must question the motivation, the reasoning, the rationale for such an appointment.
How does the creation of such a commissioner-czar with these almighty powers go with the concept of decentralization and providing local communities with decision making? We do not buy it, and neither do the people of Manitoba.
* (1520)
You are including it in a bill. You are trying to mislead the public by suggesting that this is indeed a way of empowering local communities when, in reality, you read the act, it says in terms of the commissioner, the government may appoint, and provides them with the ability to do so, that this commissioner may make recommendations, any recommendations, when it relates to labour relations in the health care sector.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have a process that is well established in Manitoba and has been working fairly well where we have two sides of a labour issue working together to come to a mutual settlement. We do not have a process where we have a dictatorial system which will dictate which side wins without the both sides agreeing to go into the process. Neither side, in terms of health organizations, is willing to accept this provision.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, not only does this commissioner make recommendations, the commissioner's decisions are final, an unprecedented move. This is not open to questions, not open to review in any type of court, agency or other appeal mechanism. This commissioner has extraordinary powers and no demonstrable public accountability. That is a serious concern to this side of the House. It is a serious concern to the labour movement. It is a serious concern to everybody who works in the health care sector, but will this government listen? We hope so.
However, the construction of the bill, the timing of the bill, the way that it is being presented to the public makes us suspect, and the fact that members on the other side are busy in their own personal conversations or reading newspapers or, you know, not interested in participating in debate, the government has no interest in this debate, but for the record, I put our concerns on the table.
I have put our concerns on the record, because we know that Manitobans want to discuss this legislation, that it is serious to them. Although it may seem trivial to the members opposite, it is important to Manitobans to talk about these bills and the impact of these bills on their lives--I think it is very unfortunate that the members on the other side have decided to withdraw from public debate of such important legislation--and challenge them to express their opinions and put on the record where their government stands, to explain to the regional health boards, explain to the Manitoba Health Organizations, explain to the hospitals in Winnipeg--to the Grace, to the St. Boniface--why this legislation should be supported.
We hear nothing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we hear nothing from the other side and we ask, why? They show no interest. They have a platform. The concern is--and we hope it is not true--that they are not listening. They are not listening to Manitobans because they have got a preset agenda and they are willing to push it through. Hopefully, that type of arrogant government is not one that we see from that side of the House, that indeed what we are going to see is some significant amendments or preferably the withdrawal of this bill until we have full, open public hearings on the whole concept of the regional health boards. The people of Manitoba do not wish to take the blame for the Tory cuts. We do not want local communities to be set up by this legislation to be the ones to, in effect, take the blame for the government's proposed and inevitable, it would seem, cuts.
The plan is clearly one which is a centralizing model. Not only that, it contradicts public statements that the minister made and this government has proclaimed or pontificated to support. What it actually does is centralize control and it is basically unfair to regional health authorities and it is unfair to hold regional health authorities accountable for the cuts that the minister makes, for the cuts that the Premier makes, for the cuts that the Filmon government makes. It is unfair for the Filmon government to hold local health authorities accountable because they have no true power. Not only is this centralizing as a model of governance and putting considerable--it is moving the decision making nowhere but upwards into the minister and putting the blame onto local authorities. But it is also doing it in a sneaky manner, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If you look at the further parts of the legislation, many parts of it are going to be determined by regulation. Regulation and more bureaucracy, that is going to be the legacy of the Filmon government, that is going to be the legacy of this government that should be looking at more efficiency and more effective governance, but what we have is more regulation, more closed doors and, instead of transparency, what we have is closed-door, centralized policy making through regulation.
In fact, the other day the Fraser Institute, a think tank, a fairly right-wing, I would say, think tank, submitted a report on the case for less regulation in government. The move by this government for more and more regulation clearly goes against the concepts of open, accountable government that the Fraser Institute is calling for, is what the people of Manitoba are calling for and is what we are calling for. The way to govern is through legislation to be up front and not through the back door through regulation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is also another area of serious concern, the fact that there is no defined appeal process to this legislation, there is no reference in this legislation to an appeal process, which again we do not believe to be a small error. Perhaps they just forgot to write in the clause. Hardly. This is again a construed piece of legislation done to definitely manipulate the health care process so that the Filmon cuts can be implemented while local boards take the blame.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have many serious concerns about the Regional Health Authorities bill and governance. I have articulated but a few of the concerns that we have had that are also articulated by the Manitoba Health Organizations, and I do hope that the government on that side, although they are still busy in their own personal conversations, will have the time to read those briefs, will have the time to perhaps look at some of the suggestions our side of the House has presented. In fact, we would like to spend some time debating this issue.
Our critic for Health has made just a few questions, a few questions. We have a few questions about the Regional Health Authorities bill, and I believe it only took our critic a few minutes to think up a hundred questions about the regional health bill, and it is not surprising, since there seems to be a clear contradiction between what the verbiage of the government is, local empowerment and the reality of the bill, which centralizes decision making and reduces transparency rather than making open and accountable legislation, as Manitobans want. Thank you.
* (1530)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Swan River who has 27 minutes remaining.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the legislation that is before us is one that is causing great concern for many people, not only in rural Manitoba but across the province. I want to take this opportunity to put forward a few comments with regard to this bill and the impact that it will have on people and the concerns that have been raised by many people that I believe this government must address.
When you look at regionalization and if it is to be considered a better way to deliver health care services and improve the delivery of health care and improve the relationship between the boards, and then you would say that regionalization is a good thing and it is something that many health experts across the country are saying that it is something that we should be looking at, and if regionalization is an attempt to empower the public and democratize the process and give better health care services, then it is certainly something that should be considered and is being looked at and something that we would support.
When we look at this piece of legislation, that is not what this piece of legislation is doing. In fact, this piece of legislation is offloading the responsibility or setting up boards that are supposed to have responsibility of delivering health care services in rural Manitoba and, in fact, probably in urban Manitoba. But in reality under this bill, the minister has a tremendous amount of power. In reality it does not give the public more power. It brings more control through the minister and it is centralizing the powers rather than empowering the communities to have better health care services.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of that we feel that this is a bad piece of legislation and one that should be withdrawn. It is dictatorial in the provisions of its powers and as I say will not improve the way that health care services are delivered. There are many concerns and I go back to--the decision to move towards regionalization was made, and it came from the recommendations of a committee that was the northern and rural task force on health care. They came forward with this decision, but they put forward many recommendations, recommendations that were supposed to be mandatory but in reality that has not happened.
One of the biggest concerns is the recommendation put forward that we would have elected boards, and that is what happens in other provinces, but the first boards were supposed to be appointed and from then move towards elected boards. When we look at this legislation there is no provision to have boards elected. They say they may be elected and, of course, that causes us great concern, and it causes a greater concern when you look at the first boards that have been elected and what the structure of those boards is. When you look at them it looks very much like, in many cases, it is who is who in the Tory membership list or perhaps who was a candidate for the Tories and that is a real concern. Good Tories have been appointed chairs of the boards by this government.
I have another concern, and that is that there is no gender balance in these boards. It is really strange that this government, who would like to have the people believe that they are open and understanding, could not find women to sit on the board. Within my region and the Swan Valley Region, I think the Parkland Health Board, there are two women I believe appointed. Out of a board of 15, surely there must be women who are willing and able to serve on this board, but this government has chosen to ignore them. When we raised the issue with the minister he said that, well, they put out the call for applications, for people to submit their names for the board, and they had lots of applications from the area but they chose to only appoint those who appeared to have ties to the Conservative Party or the majority of them.
I am also concerned that in those areas where we have a large aboriginal population, and my constituency is one of those, the Parkland regional health authority will be responsible for delivering services to many aboriginal people that again there is one aboriginal person appointed. My colleague for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) indicated in his constituency, in that area where 50 percent of the people are aboriginal people, the number of aboriginal people appointed to the board is very, very low. So I think that the minister should have been more sensitive to the needs of the people looking for true representation of the population when he was making the decision to appoint these boards rather than looking at who was friends of the Conservatives to be on the board, that he had truly considered all people. If that had not worked, if they did not get enough applications, they should have gone back to the drawing board, just as we believe they should go back to the drawing board with this bill.
There are many flaws in the bill. Many concerns that have been raised. One of them is a representation, and the fact that boards will not be elected, they will be appointed by the minster. The other is the power that has been given to the minister under this bill. Rather than empowering the people, this legislation gives more power to the minister. The minister has power to overrule the decisions of the board. For example, right now, the regional health boards that have been appointed, even though there is no legislation to make them legal, CEOs have been hired and the regional health boards are putting forward their plan. The fact is that these boards could put all their annual plans together and the minister has the power to overrule everything that they have done.
So, rather than empowering people, it is giving more power to the minister. We believe that there are so many flaws in this bill that in fact the government should withdraw this bill. They should go back to the people and consult and put forward, after consultation, a discussion paper. Let the public have input and then bring forward a piece of legislation that will really meet the needs of the people, a piece of legislation that will indeed empower the people of the communities to deliver better health care services, a piece of legislation that will allow local people to make decisions on what kind of services they want. I would hope that the minister would take to heart the recommendations that have been put forward and make a decision to withdraw this piece of legislation and go back to the public and listen to the public and bring forward a better piece of legislation that will indeed improve our health care delivery system in the province.
I have to ask, as well, whether this government is treating rural and northern Manitoba different than they are the city of Winnipeg. We have a bill that outlines how health care services are going to be delivered in rural Manitoba, but then just recently after the bill was introduced they began reworking the system and then they came up with the idea of a superboard for the city of Winnipeg.
We have to ask, will this superboard for the city of Winnipeg come under this bill or is it going to be under another piece of legislation? If those superboards in Winnipeg come under this bill, certainly it is going to require huge amendments to the bill.
* (1540)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the big concern is here that you cannot have one piece of legislation for the city of Winnipeg and a different piece of legislation for the rural part of the province. That is what this government has not spelled out, and that is, how will the new superboards for the city of Winnipeg be handled under this legislation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is also a concern about, what is the role of the existing hospital boards that are there? What is the role of the CEOs that are in place in the existing hospitals? Are we going to have now a superboard, and I look at rural Manitoba, where there is going to be a chief CEO for the whole area and then there is going to be chief executive officers for each hospital. What is the role of the existing hospital boards? Do they have any power?
The advisory committee recommended that there be district health councils established in each region, a certain number of them established in each region, and that is one of the mandatory recommendations. How are these district health councils going to be established and how are they going to be funded?
That was one of the concerns that was raised by the women's institutes, that there are district health councils who are the lowest level that would be closest to the people, but there is no funding in place for these district health councils to operate. They in fact felt that they would be quite useless without any funding. So I think that the government has created a real mishmash here and has really no direction, has given no real direction to the people of Manitoba as to how all of these people are going to fit in to deliver a better health care system. In fact, you have to wonder what the responsibility of any of these boards or councils are when the minister has the discretionary power to overrule any decisions that these people put forward.
I guess the other concern that we have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this bill does nothing to support the public health care system, and it is clearly a plan, it fits with the plan by this government to move towards privatization. Whether it be in home care or whether it be in rental of equipment, personal care, we see that there will be a move towards privatization and, within this act, there are specific powers that have been given to the board to charge for health care services. That is completely unacceptable and goes against the five major principles of health that we are supposed to be following in this province.
It appears that this government is more interested in following the model that is in New Zealand. In fact, they sent their senior staff to New Zealand to look at their model on how health care should be delivered and is the model they are following rather than following the standards that we are supposed to be having in this province.
The other concern, and I raised this in Question Period the other day, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is, what we have seen in recent months with this government recapturing surpluses, the retainable surpluses that hospital boards were allowed to keep in order to provide additional services in the hospitals, or if they had a shortfall they could use these surpluses, and they were given the assurances that this money would not be taken from them. Now we find that the government is proceeding along this path and is recapturing the retainable surpluses from the boards. Those boards who were following the government guidelines and living within their budgets--although it was very difficult to live within those budgets, they chose to do them--now those boards who have done this are being punished, and those funds are being recaptured to run the establishment of the regional health authority. That was not what was set out in the guidelines and that was not what was proposed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are many problems with the bill, and I think the one that we want to especially emphasize is the dictatorial power that has been given to the minister, a minister who is able to overrule or amend any proposals that are put forward. In fact, as I said, the new regional health boards are putting forward plans right now, but in actual fact if the minister does not like the plans, they--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Anyone wanting to carry on a conversation can do so in the halls or in the loge. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member with all the chatter that is going on, so if we could just tone it down or take it outside.
The honourable member for Swan River, to continue.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for that, and I would encourage the members of the government side to listen to what we are saying on this bill, because they have chosen not to speak on these very important issues, and many of the rural members know that the implementation of this legislation will have a negative impact on the delivery of health care in rural Manitoba. I am quite disappointed that these members would not take this opportunity to speak up for the people that they represent and put on the record any concerns that they might have with this legislation. This is a major bill and there are parts of it that we said that could be supported, but surely the government members must have heard some concerns within their community--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Labour, on a point of order.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want the member to know that if I have concerns I have raised them with the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and the Minister of Health has responded in very strong and admirable ways.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister did not have a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, to continue.
Ms. Wowchuk: I appreciate that that member wants the opportunity to put some comments on the record on these bills, because I understand that they are not allowed to do so, but since he has got a direct line to the minister's office, I would hope that the rural members and the urban members as well would want their constituents to know that they are speaking up for them on a particularly important issue, as important an issue as health care to Manitobans, that they would want something on the record rather than have just a private meeting with the Minister of Health to do this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, in previous years when there were bills that were before the House, backbenchers and members of government did put comments on the record, and you would think that on an issue such as this, an issue that could completely change how our health care system is delivered, an act that could allow the use of user fees, something that Manitobans are completely opposed to, a bill that will result, if passed without amendments, will change health care, that these government members would want to have the opportunity to put some comments on the record before we see an Americanization of our health care system. We know that that is the direction the government was going in when they spent millions of dollars on an American consultant to tell us how to do this. This is just their plan being laid out.
Another area of concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this bill gives the Minister of Health the authority to essentially become a mini-Minister of Labour, dealing with Health matters regarding labour issues such as bargaining units determination and collective bargaining. This is really quite appalling and something that the workers in the health care field are very concerned about, that we would have the Minister of Health taking on that kind of responsibility. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) should also be concerned about this as well, a Minister of Health taking over jurisdiction of labour issues.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are many concerns with this bill. It is in our opinion not a good bill. It has not been well thought out and is one that should go back to the drawing board, because it is very complex and wide-ranging. There are wide-ranging issues. I have outlined a few. There is the issue of the election of officers that the minister has backed off on. There is the issue of now giving the ability for the health boards to allow for charging for services. There is the issue of the minister taking over and becoming really a mini-Minister of Labour. There is the issue of--[interjection] Of course. The member says, then maybe we will have a minister who will speak up; that may be not a bad idea.
* (1550)
There has to be assurances that our health care system remains a nonprofit health care system, and this legislation does not ensure that. This legislation moves us towards user fees. This legislation will allow for additional pressure to be put on workers in the health care field. This legislation will allow for privatization of many more services, and we saw the letter that went to all the hospitals the other day where they are going to end the contracts for the lab and imaging departments and affect many people who are working.
So the government is on their ideological horse and moving forward to a right-wing agenda, which is not in the best interest of Manitobans. If we were really interested in people, we would be looking at empowering people and giving them the opportunity to have more say in how health care is run. We would be moving towards a preventative health care system. There are many things that could be done without this piece of legislation, and I would urge the government to look at ways that we could deliver a better health care system.
We put forward a healthy child proposal, many steps that could be taken to improve health care for children. But destroying the home care system, destroying our Pharmacare system and putting pressure on workers and privatizing labs is not the best way to deliver health care services. Creating a superboard, another level of governance within the health care system, is not the way to deliver a better health care system in this province.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are things that the government could be doing, but what they should be doing is withdrawing this piece of legislation, putting forward a discussion paper, consulting with people, consulting with experts who really believe that we should have a universal health care system and put forward a better document than we have here. But, above all, we must ensure that our health care system is preserved, and those people who built this province have the opportunity to get the services we need and that our aboriginal people have the services that we need, that we put forward policies that will ensure that we have healthy children in this province to carry forward.
We saw some real examples yesterday here in the House of people who are lost within the system of this government because they have cut back on so many programs, and that is all part of keeping children healthy in this province. This government has certainly failed the children of this province and is now failing all of the province when it comes to delivery of health care services, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I urge the government members to look at this bill and those who have taken the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) on this issue that they urge him to recognize that this is wrong. We can have regionalization, but it has to be regionalization that will empower people and bring it back to the grassroots but will not be a system that with changes will destroy the system that we want so much in this province and one that we on this side of the House will fight to ensure that we have. Thank you.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 70, The Animal Care Act; Loi sur le soin des animaux, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows. No? Okay.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be the last member of our caucus to speak on this bill, and then we are prepared to pass it through to committee.
As my colleagues the members for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) have said, we are generally in support of this piece of legislation, and I am going to speak in support of some of the processes that went into this legislation.
We like very much that there are stiff fines, that the fines have been increased in some cases tenfold. We feel that this is important to act as a deterrent, hopefully, for people from mistreating animals, both agriculturally and in personal ownership and in organizations for animals for sale. We also hope that it will act not only as a deterrent but that it will send a message to people who are convicted under this legislation that this is a very negative thing to do and that they will be punished severely for transgressing the elements of Bill 70.
Parenthetically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish that there were stiffer penalties for construction companies who allow their workers to face serious danger in the workplace. I wish there were severer penalties for people who have been convicted of driving offences, as we heard in Question Period today. So I think the government's record in this regard is checkered. However, in the context of Bill 70 it is good to see that those fines have been stiffened.
There is going to be a definition of standards for animal care and quick intervention to rescue animals from pain and suffering. I think that is a very positive step. We do need standards of definition for animal care, and we do need to have quick responses to rescue animals from pain and suffering.
Again, I compare the positives in Bill 70 with what currently happens with women who have been sexually assaulted in the province of Manitoba. There is no standard hospital protocol for dealing with women who have been sexually assaulted in the province of Manitoba. We have standards for the care of animals, in Bill 70, but we do not have any standards for the care of women who have been sexually assaulted, in hospitals, again an interesting display on the part of this government as to what is important and what is not.
This piece of legislation also requires the licensing of commercial dog and cat breeding operations. I think, as a result, several years ago, of several very disturbing items in the media, this legislation has come to pass and not a moment too soon. We hope that the government acts as quickly on the concerns that have recently been raised in the media dealing with young women who are being used as sex slaves in gang initiation, gang rapes. There does not appear to be much concern about that nor, again, other areas in the justice system.
The thing that I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking about, in a very positive way, is what the minister has said has been the process--
An Honourable Member: You cannot do it.
Ms. Barrett: The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) says that I cannot do it. I never avoid a challenge. You just watch me. Watch my lips support.
What struck me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I was reading the background and most particularly the press release about Bill 70, was the carefulness with which it appears the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) structured this bill, the procedures that he went through in order to make this bill as good as possible.
He talks about the regulations and that the regulations are going to be developed by government and industry, based on established codes of practice. This is great. This is the way it should be. You go out and you talk to the people who are actually working in the field, you go out and you talk to the people who are bringing the concerns to you. You work together. You work collaboratively on defining the regulations, and because I said I was going to be positive, I am not going to make another parallel example which has just sprung to my mind. Much as though I would like to, I will not do it. Perhaps the government members can come up with one or two examples on their own.
The regulations are supposed to ensure that the standards that are applied in these areas are realistic, practical and easily updated to keep pace with new developments in knowledge of animal care. This is the way it is supposed to be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, working together with people to put in place regulations. As we all know, for many pieces of legislation, the real impact and the real import of those pieces of legislation is not felt until you get to the making of the regulations. In some cases, in some of the legislation before us this session, the regulations are virtually the entire bill, so the regulation process is incredibly important because that is how the principles that are embedded in the bill become realized. So we appreciate and approve very much of the process that the minister appears to have undertaken in order to develop these regulations.
* (1600)
Again, the section that deals with puppy mills appears to have been based on some very good negotiations or discussions. The minister states that he worked with the Winnipeg Humane Society, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, MAUM, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, the Consumers' Association and the Canadian Kennel Club. This, again, appears, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be the way that bills should be produced and regulations should be implemented, working collaborately with the groups affected to come up with the best possible legislation.
So, while I would like to say that my colleagues for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) have made the constructive suggestion, I think, that perhaps the sections dealing with farm animals and animal husbandry could better have been dealt with in a separate piece of legislation and the areas dealing with things such as puppy mills and that kind of thing would best be separated out, but with that small concern aside, we are prepared to pass this legislation through to committee and will be supporting it. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading on Bill 70. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications corrélatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, in my comments about Bill 70 I was quite positive and supportive of the process that this piece of legislation undertook and the elements of it. I am afraid, however, that I am not going to be able to be nearly as positive in my comments about Bill 36. Bill 36 is not a good piece of legislation. It is not a good piece of legislation with its elements, and it certainly is not a good piece of legislation if you relate to the underlying principles that show through loud and clear in this piece of legislation.
The minister said that there were two or three major reasons for introducing Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Then she proceeds to outline those two or three goals of this legislation. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this legislation fails on all of the principles that she has outlined, and I will go through those in some detail. The first thing the minister says that Bill 36 will do is improve services to clients. I do not know how she can say that this is going to improve services to clients. The basic element, or one of the basic elements in Bill 36 is the elimination of the two-tier system in social allowances. Currently there are two tiers in Manitoba, one for the city of Winnipeg and one for the rest of the municipalities and cities and areas in the province, and the aim of Bill 36 is to bring those together into one tier.
Now, the concept of a one-tier social allowances is not in and of itself a negative, however the concern that we have, and a concern that I would suggest is founded in a great deal of reality, is that the one tier that the government is going to choose to implement is going to be the provincial tier. The reason that is a concern for us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the provincial social allowance system is not nearly as good on a number of scales as the City of Winnipeg social allowance system.
One of the bases that we agree with is that it is important to try and assist people to get off social assistance. It is important to try and break the cycle of poverty. It is important to try and ensure that families do not have to look towards a life only of continued reliance on the social assistance network. We all want that. This legislation does not help to bring that goal about, however.
I will give a couple of examples of that. Currently, the City of Winnipeg provides for its recipients to get bus passes so that they can physically go look for work, they can go have job interviews, they can have a degree of mobility, provides, in certain cases, for additional funding for work clothes. It is one thing to say you are going to go out on a job search; it is quite another to have clothing that is adequate to the task. We all know how important personal appearance is when making application or having an interview for a job. If you do not have at least a decent basic wardrobe, your chances of getting a job are that much further reduced. The city recognizes this reality. The city also recognizes the reality that its basic welfare allowances do not always allow for the individual to be able to get clothing to be able to effectively go out and look for a job.
The city welfare system also recognizes a very important idea, very important reality, and that is that many people on assistance have children. They have children who are not always in school. So the city welfare allows, in certain cases, for individuals, when they are going out on job searches or when they are taking training programs, to have some support to cover child-care expenses so that their children are not forced either into unsafe conditions on the street or to be looked after by people who are not trained nor are, in some cases, competent to watch out for them.
There is a great deal of flexibility, not only in these elements in the city welfare system, but unlike the provincial system, the city welfare system allows for the front-line social worker, whose clients these people are, to make these determinations by themselves. The worker can decide if some assistance for child-care expenses or work expenses or a bus pass is something that will help this individual get a job and break the cycle of poverty. In the provincial system, you have to go to the director or sometimes the assistant deputy minister or, in some cases, the minister before you get these kinds of approvals. It is much more flexible in the city system.
* (1610)
Another element that is different between the city system and the provincial system is the level of education of the workers themselves. In the City of Winnipeg, at least 50 of the front-line workers have social work degrees. That means they have a basic knowledge of the principles of social welfare, they have had course work in interpersonal relations, they understand the system and they have a basic concern and caring for their clients. That is not to say that provincial social assistance workers do not care for their clients, and I do not want that to be left on the record at all, but there is a higher level of training on the part of the city workers than there is on the part of the provincial workers and, perhaps, going along with that, an understanding of how they can network with other organizations and groups to facilitate people getting off social assistance.
Another element that the minister spoke of in her remarks introducing Bill 36 was that this would reduce administrative duplication. Well, yes, I guess you can say that by definition, ultimately, if you go from two systems to one system, a certain amount of administrative overlap will be eliminated. However, I do not believe Bill 36 in itself provides for, nor do I believe that regulations and funding will provide for, the costs associated with the transition from two systems to one system.
There are different computer systems in operation here. There are different protocols in operation here. Who is going to decide the protocols for determining which clients get access to child care and bus passes and other additional funding? Who is going to decide whether the front line worker can make those determinations or if it has to be at a higher level? Who is going to decide which computer system is going to be implemented? Who is going to do the transition of the computer systems?
I will admit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to abject ignorance on the part of the computer process. I do know, however, the difficulty that is entailed with going from one system to another system or putting two separate systems into a third system. It takes a long time. The Department of Family Services has been trying to implement computerization, and they still have not completely done it.
This is going to be an enormously expensive proposition, enormously expensive in terms of money and enormously expensive in terms of time. Who is going to pay for that time? Who is going to pay for the release of or the hiring of people who will implement the computer transition? Nothing is said. All the minister says is that it is going to reduce administrative expenses and administrative duplication.
Well, as I stated, yes, ultimately it may do so, but there is going to be a fairly lengthy transition period, and if the history of this government is any indication, there will be absolutely no resources provided to the social assistance system in order to facilitate that transition.
There are not only separate programs and procedures and protocols and computer systems, but there are also three separate unions that represent the workers in the two systems, in the municipal system and the city welfare system. Who is going to determine which union represents those workers?
If Bill 49 is any indication, there may be through regulation a czar appointed by the minister to make that determination singly and alone. Even if Bill 49 is not the template for this particular process in Bill 36, there is still an enormous question. How are you going to integrate three separate unions with three separate contracts and three separate representative systems into one system? Who is going to make the determination? How are they going to work together? Are there any resources being put in place to assist in that transition?
The government may not care for unions, but the reality of the fact is that there are union representing the workers in the social assistance field. They must be taken into account. Those procedures must be looked at, and the rights of those union members must be respected at all costs. So I am putting the government on notice that we will be observing very carefully how it implements the transition from two-tier to one-tier when it comes to workers' rights and the unions that represent them currently.
The minister also states that this Bill 36 will avoid situations of fraud or abuse. She does not explain this in any detail at all, and I am not quite sure I understand how Bill 36 is going to have as a result a reduction in fraud and abuse. I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not likely to get an answer to my question, because the government refuses to debate these bills of import. We are asking questions that members of the public are asking, and we are not getting any answers, not an unusual situation for this government. Assuming that there is a protocol going to be put into place, there is something in Bill 36 that we cannot find that is going to help reduce the situations of fraud or abuse, why does the minister continue to pick on this particular problem? Every study done in Winnipeg, in Manitoba, in Canada, in North America, in every developed country in the world, every single study says that at a maximum there is a 3 percent chance of fraud or abuse of the social welfare system.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
In virtually every situation where governments have put in place procedures to try and catch those abusers, the procedures themselves cost more money than they recover through situations of fraud or abuse. Again, it is an indication of the pettiness, if I can say it, of this government to highlight in a bill of this importance the situation that is really a very small and negligible problem, far less of a problem than the transition elements that I have spoken of.
Madam Speaker, the minister also says that Bill 36 will help emphasize employment. Well, again, where? How? This government over its six-plus years in--no, eight years--in office has done nothing to increase the opportunities for people to work, most particularly people who are on social assistance. They have done nothing but decrease those opportunities. They have taken programs and have eliminated them or not funded them. They have chosen not to fund programs such as the Parent-Child Centres that were proven through their core area five years of existence to be an excellent preventive program, proven to give mothers and other parents opportunities to network one with another, to give their children an opportunity to interact with each other, to learn how other families work and overcome problems. They did not fund the Parent-Child Centres.
They have cut the Human Resources Opportunity Centres. They have been totally eviscerated. These programs put upwards of 90 percent of their recipients to work. What have they replaced them with? Programs such as Taking Charge!, which was 18 months late in getting off the ground, which has had a number of people make application to the program and who have been turned down. We do not know much about the Taking Charge! program, but we do know that even if it worked at optimum it would not begin to replace the programs that this government has eliminated.
There are 41,000 social assistance cases in the province of Manitoba. Not all of those cases are employable. Many of them are not. This government in Bill 36 and in statements that the minister and others have made in the House seems to assume that, No. 1, every single person on social assistance, every case, if you will, every family, can work. That is a false assumption, and it is a patently false assumption. The other assumption that bills such as Bill 36 make is that there will be jobs for these 41,000 cases. Well, Madam Speaker, we know that is not true. When the government cuts the programs, the training programs, the education programs, the social interaction programs, all the programs that can assist social assistance recipients to get the training, to get the background to enable them to make application for jobs and be seriously considered for jobs, how can they expect the social assistance recipients to be able to compete in a job market where there are 5,000 fewer jobs today than there were a year ago?
* (1620)
In a job market where jobs that used to be seen as entry level jobs or jobs for kids in high school, as afternoon, after work jobs such as in the fast food industry, these jobs are not being taken by high school students or being able to be jobs for social assistance recipients as entry level jobs. Many of these jobs are currently being taken by university graduates or they are being taken by seniors who have had their programs and their supports cut back to the extent that they have to go back out into the workforce. There are not jobs available even for people with high skill levels. There certainly are not jobs available for people who are on social assistance and have low levels of education achievement or training or other skills.
Another requirement is that you will no longer have assistance if you are--or you will be required to go to look for work if your children are over six years of age. Now, I assume that the basis for this is that kids are in school and therefore their parents, usually their mothers, have nothing better to do but then to go out and look for work. Well, I refer back to my earlier comments about the fact that in many cases the parents do not have access to child care. They do not have access to the equipment that they need to be able to effectively do a job search. They do not have telephones. They are not able to access telephones, and I would like to know how many jobs you think you could get if you did not have access to a phone so a potential employer could call you back. Not very many.
The minister says that people want to work. Well, this is absolutely true; there is no denying that, but there are not the jobs and there is not the training and the support available for many of these people to get off social assistance. So for the minister in Bill 36 to punish these people because of cutbacks that they themselves have undertaken as a government is rather unfortunate and will have devastating impacts on many people. When the minister says people want to work, I think she is assuming that everybody, even in a full job market, would find work.
I think the Prime Minister of Canada in effect has redefined what full employment is when he recently said do not expect the unemployment level will get down below 8 percent in the next few years. That is, the structural unemployment level is now 8 percent according to the federal government. A few years ago 8 percent would have been considered an unacceptably high level of unemployment. Well, we are almost at 10 percent. In some places, we are at over 10 percent. In some parts of Manitoba, we are at 95 percent unemployment.
People are not unemployed because they do not want to work; they are unemployed because they do not have the skills necessary to compete for their jobs. They are unemployed because there are not any jobs available. There are also people who in our society, given the structure of our economy, are not going to be able to find work, even if the unemployment rate were down at 2 percent or 3 percent, as it was several years ago.
There are still people who will be unable to find work. Those are people who have physical and mental challenges that preclude them from the workforce. Perhaps many of them should not be precluded from the workforce and would not need to be precluded from the workforce if we had programs in place that would help them discover and live up to their potential, but the reality is that there are a number of people in these 41,000 cases, these 41,000 families, who are not going to be able to find work, and this government is punishing them. This government is going to say, I do not care what your physical constraints are, I am not going to give you a bus pass to go. I am not going to give you a support like Handi-Transit, which, by the way, is being severely reduced due, in no small part, to the reductions from this provincial government to the City of Winnipeg for transit.
It is just a punitive piece of legislation that does not reflect the reality of Manitoba today and does not even reflect the optimum reality of a Manitoba that was not governed by a Progressive Conservative government. It is just a nasty, negative piece of legislation.
Funny, the minister talks about the change from--a language change. It is not going to be called The Social Allowances Act anymore; it is going to be called The Employment and Income Assistance Act, and she makes a fairly strong statement about that. This is the same minister that several years ago changed the act dealing with the status of women. She changed the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women Act to the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council. I was critic of this minister at the time, and I was critical of this minister at the time, when she made that change, because I stated then that language is important. It says a great deal about what we feel and think, and it reflects our values.
Now the minister said, it is not important. It is not important; it is still doing the same thing. Now the minister is saying that we are changing the title of this act because language is important, because we want to go from social allowances, which I think she meant to mean welfare, to employment and income assistance, somehow thinking that that is going to make the reality any different. Well, language is important. The language that has changed in this act, the fact that she has changed the title of this act, speaks volumes.
First of all, I do not think the new title reflects the actual impact of this piece of legislation. It is not going to help people find employment. If the government does not make massive changes to this legislation, it is going to make it more difficult for people to find employment. As far as the income assistance part of the new title, no, this is not going to do the same thing either. It is going to make it more difficult for people to get income assistance. It is going to reduce the amount of income assistance they get. It is probably going to mean that all families with infants a year old or less are going to have a severe reduction in the amount of money they are going to have to feed and clothe their children, their infants. It is the complete antithesis of employment and income assistance. So the minister is being not straight with the people of Manitoba if she says that this is a positive act.
Also, just briefly, on the language, social allowances. When the minister eliminates the word "social" from this piece of legislation, I think also what she is saying is that we no longer have a social contract one with another. We no longer as the state have a responsibility to ensure that all of our citizens have the basic necessities. When you take the word "social" out of legislation and out of titles and out of the language, you are removing from our culture, if you will, something that has been part of the Canadian mosaic, the Canadian cultural mosaic since the time of its inception, and that is the concept that we are a community, that we are responsible for each other, that we are not just an amalgam of individuals, but we are a society.
This is a dreadful piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, and at committee we will be voting against it. With those few words, I am putting my comments on the record. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
The hour being 4:30 p.m., time for private members' hour.
* (1630)