Manitoba Hansard — 24 May 2001 (Sitting 35B, 37th Legislature, 2nd Session)

37-2-35b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LI No. 35B- 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 24, 2001 ISSN 0542-5492

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott, Hon. STEFANSON, Heather STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Rob lin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

2233 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 24, 2001 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mani toba Hydro Lines Routes Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Melvin Conover, Penny Friesen, Jock Nault and others, praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Selinger) consider alternative routes for the additional 230kV and 500kV lines proposed for the R.M. of East St. Paul. Kenaston Underpass Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Bernie Dyck, Susan Boulet, Mark Penner and others, praying that the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of A. Jones, D. Bekolay, M. Kulas and others, praying that the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mani toba Hydro Lines Routes Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Speaker: Clerk, please read. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the R.M. of East St. Paul has the highest concentration of high voltage power lines in a residential area in Manitoba; and THAT the R.M. of East St.

Paul is the only jurisdiction in Manitoba that has both a 500kV and a 230kV line directly behind residences; and THAT numerous studies have linked cancer, in particular childhood leukemia, to the proximity of power lines. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro consider alternative routes for the additional 230kV and 500kV lines proposed for the R.M. of East St. Paul. Kenaston Underpass Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Morris (Mr.

Pitura), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Speaker: Clerk, please read. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and

2234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection bum up approximately $1. 4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approximately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Speaker: Clerk, please read.

Madam Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection bum up approximately $1. 4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approximately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Clerk, please read.

Madam Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection bum up approximately $1. 4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approximately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. * (13:35) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Report of the Review and Implementation Committee for the Report of the Manitoba Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Inquest, May 2001. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 23-The Highway Traffic Amendment Act Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): On behalf of the minister of highways (Mr.

Ashton), I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that leave be given to introduce Bill 23, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route), and that the same be now received and read a first time.

May 24, 2001 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2235 Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Attorney General have leave to move the motion? [Agreed] Motion agreed to. Bill 32-The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines (Ms. Mihychuk), that leave be given to introduce Bill 32, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable minister also table the message? The honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Aff airs, have you tabled the Lieutenant Governor's message? Ms. Friesen : Yes, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge it was attached. Mr. Speaker: It has to be recorded as tabled; that is why I was just asking the honourable minister. Motion presented. Ms. Friesen : Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), that leave- Mr. Speaker: Order. I was recognizing the honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Aff airs if she had a quick response to the bill. If not, then is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Motion agreed to. Bill 34-The Municipal Amendment Act Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), that leave be given to introduce Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalites, and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House, and I am tabling that message. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us, from Daniel Mcintyre Collegiate, 15 Grade 11 students under the direction of Mrs. Connie Baker. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines (Ms.

Mihychuk). Also in the public gallery, we have, from Arthur A. Leach Junior High, 23 Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Susanne Achenbach. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith). * (13: 40) Also in the public gallery we have, from Roseau Valley School, 24 Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Richard Waslanka. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner).

Also, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery and to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us legislators from Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. From Minnesota: Senator Dick Day, Senator Dennis Frederickson, Senator Jane Krentz, Senator Roger Moe, Representative Maxine Penas, Representative Tom Pugh, Representative Rod Skoe, Representative Steve Sviggum; from North Dakota: Senator Tom Fischer, Senator Joe Heitkamp, Senator Ken Solberg, Representative Ole Aarsvold, Representative AI Carlson, Representative David Monson; and from South Dakota: Senator

2236 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 Arnold Brown, Senator Paul Dennert, Senator Barbara Everist, Senator Jim Hutmacher, Representative J. Duenwald, Representative Gary Hanson, Representative Mike Jaspers, Representative Jim Peterson. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the Premier (Mr. Doer) for allowing myself and our colleague, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr.

Gerrard), to work in conjunction with the legislators from Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. I think we had a very worthwhile meeting and things were accomplished, so I would like to pass on my congratulations to the Premier for initiating that meeting. Health Care System Public Consul tation Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, health care in Canada and indeed Manitoba is a very, very worthwhile initiative and is something that requires attention from all levels of government.

However, I think it is important to point out that the expenditure in Canada on health care is certainly unsustainable. When you look at Manitoba, the amount of money that is put on spending in health care is $5,000 a minute. That adds up to $7 miiiion a day. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we looked at our health care system. Reform is needed. Public debate is needed. Why then has the Premier put forward legislation that will prevent dialogue, that wiii prevent innovation and prevent much needed reform? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker. first of all, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition's comments about the forum we had over the last two days, and I would like to thank all members of the Legislature who participated in the forum with our colleagues from North Dakota, Minnesota and South Dakota. We have truly reached very, very important conclusions over the last 24 hours dealing with upper basin storage of water, flood mitigation, energy, policies that we share in common. We agreed to chemical harmonization in agriculture.

We agreed to reinforce the excellent contingency plans we have in all jurisdictions across our region for foot and mouth disease. So I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gerrard), the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner), and the Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire), along with our delegates and all the other visitors here in Manitoba and here in Canada. We were really truly pleased with the results over the last 24 hours, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comment today.

Addressing his question that was posed in the Chamber, we certainly know, and I have articulated to the member opposite yesterday in Question Period to another question, when we did come into office the per capita spending in Manitoba from all provinces was the highest in Canada with very questionable results. Having said that, we also know the amount of money spent in the Canadian health care system with I 00% access as a percentage of GOP is considerably lower than other jurisdictions with the mixed system of public profit systems.

We believe the changes that were proposed yesterday do not in any way, shape or form prevent innovation. We have innovations going on all the time in health care. They are very, very necessary. I mentioned yesterday we have more support going into community-based health care, preventative health care, to health care programs for prenatal and postnatal programs, because we feel the issue of healthy babies is very, very important to our future. We believe that the proposals yesterday are consistent with actually the policies of the previous government. * (13: 45) Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted that we could agree, as the Premier stated, on some of the initiatives that we did discuss with the other legislators, and I am delighted that we did agree on that. On this issue, however, Mr. Speaker, we disagree. Manitobans and indeed all Canadians want quality health care. They want it quickly

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2237 and they want choice. We on this side of the House believe they deserve it. Members opposite continue to fearmonger and spread mistruths about Manitoba patients and how they will suffer because of it. In this Legislature, in this very Chamber, in 1989 the leader opposite spoke, and I will quote what he said. He said: Look at creative ways to reform our health care system. Look at ways of dealing with the rising costs of the health care system and you will get support from our party. Well, Mr.

Speaker, rather than sticking with his commitment of being open to reform and dealing with the rising costs of health care, why has the Premier slammed the door on public debate and dialogue and much needed reform? Why is this Premier putting his ideology ahead of what is best for patients? Mr. Doer: Surely the member opposite is not suggesting for a moment that he is incapable of debating this issue when this issue was before this legisla tive forum. I think the debate is available to members opposite. They have a responsibility to try to make their point Mr.

Speaker, the debate is available for the public of Manitoba. Like all pieces of legislation, it will go before a legislative committee that will include presentations from the public. We will certainly listen to see how many people support, like the member opposite supports a profit health care system. When it comes to creative health care, members opposite brought us frozen food, firing a thousand nurses and the attempt to privatize home care in Manitoba. We have put in support for an eating disorder program for many teenage youths, Mr. Speaker, that we believe is a very creative program.

We have put in place a prenatal and postnatal program for underweight babies that we think is very, very important. We have increased the responsibility and increased the number of training spots for nurses in Manitoba, across Manitoba. We are putting more diagnostic care outside the city of Winnipeg. It is not just going to be located in the two teaching hospitals. We have a number of creative alternative ways of dealing with health care, whether it is keeping our schools open later at night in some of the targeted areas.

Every day we make a difference to improve health care in the most creative ways possible to reduce the pressure on acute care hospitals, increase the ability to prevent health care sicknesses and have ways of having long-term, good health with the citizens of this province. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to get the lecture over on the other side when, in fact, under his watch, this Government fired some 600 nurses and closed two hospitals. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about needed health reform that will help all Canadians and all Manitobans. I was surprised when I asked the Minister of Health (Mr.

Chomiak) if he had had any dialogue with Mr. Romanow. He said no. Well, where are these opportunities? Where are these opportunities of dialogue that this Premier is talking about? Clearly, this debate is not about what is right for the politicians. This debate is what is right for the people and the patients of Manitoba. Will the Premier listen to Manitobans and commit today to holding province-wide public consultations on health care before he completely closes the door to reform that could lead to improved health care for Manitobans? * (13 :50) Mr.

Doer: Let me try to deal with a number of the rambling issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Number one, in his first question he talks about the cost of health care, and then he begrudges us the decision to take two hospitals that were old and combine them into one hospital, one new modem hospital, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Winkler Morden area. So he cannot have it or he should not try to have it both ways. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, in this Legislature, during our Estimates on May 7, 2001, certainly for the record there is no intent on this side to do as the member might suggest, to make it a private hospital. So, I guess I cannot understand why he would have one position in Estimates and have another position in this Chamber in Question Period.

2238 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 200I Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the committee for health alternatives has already articulated when you have a private system adjacent to a public system, and they looked at the issue of Alberta and cataract waiting lists, both systems become more expensive. Again, very germane to the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked in his first question. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, we have talked to Premier Romanow. The Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) has talked to former Premier Romanow.

I have talked to him on three occasions, and a number of items arose out of the health care action plan with the other premiers: a co-ordinated approach to pharmaceuticals, a co-ordinated approach to human resources across Canada, a co-ordinated information approach for all our jurisdictions. We have even implemented something that is very specific to today's issues. We have initiated and are working with western provinces to make sure that each of us has a Centre of Excellence for Children's Health, not try to duplicate those services and unfortunately fail, Mr. Speaker.

We think we have a very, very co ordinated approach and a very good look at how to modernize and innovate health care, but a health care system that will be available for all our citizens, no matter what their wealth. Pan Am Clinic Overnight Stays Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): On a new question, it was a little difficult to follow that very disjointed attempt at an answer. But I will ask the Premier, Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Doer government introduced an ideologically driven piece of legislation that many fear will put patient safety at risk, would reduce patient choice and prevent needed innovation in health care. Through his legislation, the Premier is preventing overnight stays at surgical centres, surgical facilities. I was going to ask the Premier: Can he tell Manitobans if his Pan Am Clinic will be the exception to the rule and will in fact be allowing overnight stays in the future? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): Last year when there was a debate in Alberta on Bill II , many people talked about the fact that in Manitoba the College of Physicians and Surgeons had a by law that specifically prohibited overnight stays. This legislation deals with what was found to be a loophole. There was a debate in the last election campaign on health care. We had a number of differences with members opposite, but I certainly recall very directly that the former Premier and the former Leader of the Opposition did not campaign on profit hospitals in Manitoba. Let us make that very clear, Mr. Speaker.

Private Health Care Clinics Overnight Stays Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Oppositio n): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member mentions the fact that there was a debate on health care at the last election. There was. They promised to end hallway medicine in six months, in fifteen, and they failed. They failed in that debate. Mr. Speaker, just as the Premier has stated in this House on many occasions that a baby is a baby is a baby. Well, we believe that a surgical centre is a surgical centre is a surgical centre. Dr.

Brian Postl has stated that the WRHA is considering allowing the Pan Am to have overnight stays. I would tell you we on this side of the House would support that move because it would ensure patient safety. It would ensure patient safety in the event that post-operative care needs ends up being longer than anticipated. So I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, can he please explain why he put forward his legislation that would prevent all other surgical centres from doing everything possible to ensure patient safety? * (13 :55) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has rules that say if you have a surgical centre you have to have admitting privileges to a hospital or you have to have access to a hospital for procedures. Day surgical centres are precisely what they are, day surgical centres.

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2239 They are not designed for overnight stays. They have not been allowed to be overnight. We are simply extending and dealing with a loophole, so, no, they will not be overnight. If a patient requires the kind of intensive surgery required to be overnight, they should be in a hospital. Finally, if members opposite were so intent upon hospital service and providing surgery, they should not have closed the largest hospital in the history of Manitoba, that is, the Misericordia Hospital. Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, I find it incredible that the Minister of Health would try to convince Manitobans that a politician would know better than a doctor. Mr. Speaker, existing legislation, I think we all understand this, allows clinics such as The Maples Surgical Centre to have up to four overnight beds. This is not a loophole as they would suggest. It is a means of ensuring patient safety. The Maples Surgical clinic is a clinic, not a hospital. Can the Premier (Mr. Doer) explain why he has put forward legislation that will stop clinics from having a few beds?

Is he so opposed to overnight stays that he would endanger patient safety to ensure his ideology is not compromised? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, first off, I will correct a wrong statement of the Leader of the Opposition. The four beds is a provision, and surgical centres can have beds. They have had beds; they continue to have beds. His former Minister of Health indicated they did not want to have private hospitals. The Maples Surgical Centre, any clinic, can have beds but there are specific rules with the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

It says that you have to have admitting privileges to a hospital, or you ought to have access to a hospital if you are going to have that kind of procedure. There are day surgery centres that offer day surgery. If a surgery is so complex that it requires overnight stay, it ought to be in a hospital, but nothing is precluded in this legislation that was not permitted under existing laws, and we have never until now allowed private hospitals in Manitoba. I am sorry that the Opposition party has now changed its position on that. * (14:00) Mr. Speaker: Order.

The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. The honourable Government House Leader, were you up on a point of order? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I will pass. Nursing Profession Full-time Employment Opportunities Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr. Speaker, the track record of this Doer government in addressing the nursing shortage in the province of Manitoba is deplorable. In less than two years, the nursing shortage- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.

Speaker, I think nurses would like to hear the answer, the truthful answers to these questions. In less than two years, the nursing shortage in Manitoba has doubled to 1 100, and 600 nurses have been fired in this province under this Government. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health explain to Manitoba nurses why he failed to keep his promise to convert part-time positions to full-time positions?

I quote from September of 1999: Today's NDP will immediately implement our nurses first program and will begin to hire permanent full-time nurses to fulfil our pledge to end hallway medicine within six months of forming Government. What have they done with this promise? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): am glad the member referenced our five-point nurses plan, because it gives me an opportunity to again express the fact that we have doubled the number of nurses in education for the first time in a decade. We brought back the diploma program that was slashed by members opposite.

We put in place a nurses task force to deal with nursing conditions. It has a number of

2240 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 recommendations to improve the working conditions of nurses. In addition, we have increased, though not as much as I would like, the number of full-time nurses, and we are continuing to work at that. We are not doing what members opposite did, Mr. Speaker, and fire a thousand nurses. Mrs. Mitchelson: The facts speak for themselves. What can the Minister of Health say to the 60 percent of nursing graduates that graduated last year that could not get full-time jobs in this province? Mr.

Chomiak: We have sent directives to all of the regional health authorities to hire full-time nurses in all occasions that they can, which is something that was not done by the previous government. We also work with nurses to try to improve the conditions so that we can have more full-time nurses, and we will be announcing further strategy regarding full-time nurses. The root of the problem lies in the fact that in the last two years the numbers of nursing graduates were 135 and 153 respectively, Mr. Speaker, which is one quarter of what it was a decade ago.

That is a result of the fact that members opposite slashed the nursing programs and cut them down from graduations of 502 in 1998 to 190 now. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. There is no need for this minister to talk about slashing. We know what type of slashing this minister is going to be doing with the underfunding he has done. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order? Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, was just pointing out the fact that we have so few nurses graduate because members opposite had cut the programs and we are not graduating even a quarter of the nurses that we used to graduate. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, it is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mrs.

Mitchelson: Will the Minister of Health cut the rhetoric, admit now that he has failed to keep his promises that were made during the election campaign, that he has failed Manitoba nurses, and the situation in our hospitals today is in a crisis situation because of the lack of action? All talk, no action and no plan. Mr.

Chomiak: As I already outlined in March of 2000, we put in place a five-point nurses plan that saw the doubling of nurses in training for the first time in a decade. which saw for the first time the reintroduction of LPNs at acute care centres, LPNs in rural Manitoba; thirdly, put in place a workforce task force; fourth, brought back the diploma program; fifth, put in place a more extensive recruitment and retention program, sixth, put in place an education program to provide $3 million for nurses to be upgraded in their program and provide payment for that, which was something that nurses had asked for for some time, rather than bringing back Connie Curran.

Nursing Profession Full-time Employment Opportunities Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Cha rleswood): Mr. Speaker, today the president of the Manitoba Nurses' Union said that for the Government. and I quote, to only create 1.5 percent more permanent, full-time positions for our members in two years is deplorable. She said it is time for the Doer government to start acting. I would like to ask the Minister of Health what he has to say to nurses who say that his track record in creating full-time jobs for nurses is absolutely deplorable in this province. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, we have put in place some programs to deal with full-time jobs, and our record is not great, but right now it is better than it was- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, our record is not great on the

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 224 1 creation of full-time jobs, but it is substantially better than what members opposite did during 12 years of government. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his honesty in putting the fact out there that his record is not great. I would like to ask the minister: What does he have to say to Manitoba nurses, and these are Manitoba nurses; I am just the messenger here.

They are saying, and I quote from the president of the union who said today: To have only 35 percent of a predominantly female workforce working full-time in nursing is ridiculous. Women work. This is a new century. They are crying over the nursing shortage, and there is a failure to create full-time, permanent positions. What is the minister going to say to the nurses who find his record deplorable? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the same nurse that the member opposite quoted from in a report that was ta bled in this Legislature in 1998.

My quote: We desperately need more qualified caregivers at the bedside. Over the past couple of years approximately a thousand nurses have been laid off by government. We took that seriously. We doubled the number of nurses in training. We have brought back the diploma program. We provided training and education, and despite what the member opposite said about full-time nurses, we are still doing a better job than members opposite did when they were in government and will do better as we go on. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister or perhaps even the Premier (Mr.

Doer), who choose to keep wanting to use the politically mischievous term that the Tories fired a thousand nurses, what does he say to the student nurses who have recently phoned me and said: Myrna, why does the Government keep on lying about that? How can you make them stop lying? That is what student nurses have said to me. How can I answer them, and how does this minister want to answer student nurses and others out there where this Government is making these accusations that are absolutely false? * (14 :10) Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, I think that members opposite have exhibited, both in that question and in the way they deal with Question Period, their attitude when they were in government and their attitude now with respect to health care. I will just quote from a report that was tabled in this Legislature in 1998 which said: Over the past several years, approximately 1000 nurses have been laid off by government. In addition, many nurses laid off left the province to seek nursing jobs elsewhere, primarily in the United States. That document was tabled in this Chamber. It was provided by the MNU. Point of Order Mrs. Driedger: Mr.

Speaker, Beauchesne's 417, that indicates we should not get into debate in here. Some Honou rable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind all honourable members that a point of order is a very serious matter, and I would ask the co operation of all honourable members. The honourable Member for Charleswood, on a point of order. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Minister of Health has a tendency to provoke debate.

He is choosing to quote from a report that was given to him by the Manitoba Nurses' Union, and he is deliberately choosing to avoid a document that was tabled in this House by me about a year ago from Department of Health staff, his own staff, that showed, of the nurses who were in the system during the '90s, the nurses who were redeployed within the '90s, 830 of those nurses were immediately rehired in other jobs. That is his department staff putting forward that information; yet he is choosing to use a union report on these issues. You know, this is hard to even know, Mr.

Speaker, which way to go with this Minister of

2242 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 Health who is constantly provoking debate on this issue. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order? Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I find the member's point of order very, very curious insofar as the member stood up in this Chamber and accused me of lying, and I did not call a point of order. I simply stood up and put on the record the point that showed the member was wrong. I showed the member a report that said a thousand nurses had been laid off, a report that I had tabled in this Chamber.

So, for the member to then say that we are not answering the question after the member called us liars on this-which was very intemperate language and ought to be withdrawn-but I am so used to it, I just let it flow over me because members do that all the time. pointed out, No. 1, that this report was tabled in the Legislature and pointed out that a thousand nurses had been fired by this government. Secondly, on the point the same Nurses' Union that provided this report is the same group and the same people that the member cited in her other question, Mr.

Speaker, she cannot have it both ways like she always does. Mr. Speaker: Order. Before ruling on the point of order I would just like to remind all honourable members that a point of order should be raised for breaching a rule or unparliamentary language and not to be raised to be used for debate. I would just like to remind all honourable members. On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Charleswood, it is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a new point of order. Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): A new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, during his statement or his so-called speech to the member's point of order, the minister clearly stated that the member said that he lied. The member never stated that he lied. That was a call that she received. It was a call that she received from some nursing students. I think it is wrong for this minister to be coming at the Member for Charleswood and saying that she called him a liar. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, first off, as the rules require, we ask that the Member for Charleswood table the letter that she was quoting from, and I will deal with the other matters later. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on clarification. Mr. Laurendeau: On clarification, Mr. Speaker. It was not a letter; it was a phone call and that was clearly stated by the member. Mr. Mackintosh : Mr. Speaker, on the new point of order- Mr. Speaker: I have to deal with one point of order at a time. Mr. Mackintosh: For clarification of all members: "Tabling letters 37.

Where in a debate a Member quotes from a private letter, any other Member may require the Member who quoted from the letter to table the letter from which the Member quoted but this rule does not alter any rule or practice of the House relating to the tabling of documents other than private letters." So I ask the honourable Member for Charleswood if you were quoting from a private letter? Just for clarification, I am asking the honourable member. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated in my statement that it was a phone call I received from student nurses.

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2243 Mr. Speaker: That is fine. The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, for clarification. Mr. Laurendea u: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's 494: "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted." * (14:20) Mr. Speaker: For clarification of all members, I am assured by the honourable Member for Charleswood, it was not a private letter. So the honourable member does not have a private letter, as far as I am concerned, to table.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I did not hear the comments, so to be fair I will take the matter under advisement to peruse Hansard. I will consult the procedural authorities and I will report back to the House. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a new point of order. Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a new point of order, but it follows the point of order of the House Leader of the Opposition.

It is my understanding and I believe there have been rulings in this House that the words "lying" or "lies" are clearly unparliamentary; indeed it is by its very nature unparliamentary. Whether that is by way of a quote or a member's own words, they are unparliamentary and must be ruled as such. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule accordingly and ask the member to withdraw and apologize for those remarks. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, on the ruling I just made on the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, that is exactly what I took under advisement. So I have already taken that matter under advisement and I will report back to the House. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to conclude his comments. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, just to complete my response to the question, we put in place a nurses action plan that had not been put in place in over a decade.

We are working on additional measures in terms of our task force that will shortly be reporting. They will have a number of recommendations to improve the working conditions of nurses. Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that we have doubled the number of nurses in training now than at any time in the past decade. East St. Paul High Voltage Power Lines Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, in 1992, the current Minister of Hydro, the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger), led the attack to have a 66kV power line near Tache elementary school removed from his neighbourhood. Yet he continues to tell East St.

Paul residents that nearly 2000kV of power is completely safe. Does the minister not think there is some hypocrisy in being such a defender of 2000kV of power in someone else's community and yet lead the attack against 66kV of power in his own constituency? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister cha rged with the admin istration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): To set the record straight, I reviewed the impact of hydro lines in my community as a city councillor, and the information I received was that there was no negative impact.

When I was requested by the member opposite to look at the impact of hydro lines in his community, I once again went to the experts in the field, the public health officials and experts in cancer care, and asked them to review the literature, and they found that the literature had evolved, that, in fact, it was no longer inconclusive, but the weight of evidence showed that there was no association. Yesterday, the member tabled in the House further information about the incidence of cancer in the west East St.

Paul area, and by copy of the letter that I am going to table in the Legislature today, I have asked the Minister of Health (Mr.

2244 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 Chomiak) to look into this matter. I am informed that the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and CancerCare Manitoba are going to follow up on this report and check into the facts and report back to us as soon as they can. Thank you. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, can the minister name anywhere else in Manitoba where residents live next to almost 2000kV of power as he alleged yesterday in this House? Mr. Selinger: Yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, I explained in the House that the issue is the level of electromagnetic frequency emissions in terms of proximity of people to those lines. I indicated yesterday there are lines in Manitoba that give off higher levels of that frequency of emissions even though the amount of kilovolts is lower. That information I will make available to the member opposite, but clearly, what was examined here was the impact of these emissions on people, and it was found by the experts in the field not to be negative. Mr. Schuler: Mr.

Speaker, will the minister support our colleagues from Dauphin, The Pas, Swan River, Radisson and Wolseley in their calls for intervener funding and provide the residents committee of East St. Paul with funds to present their case to the Clean Environment Commission's upcoming hearing? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I have asked health officials to follow up on the health concerns that were raised yesterday. The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, in consultation and co operation with CancerCare Manitoba, is going to investigate this information.

I would caution members opposite not to draw any conclusions between the incidence of cancer and the causes of cancer. The report indicated no specific causes, and there are many possibilities. For example, I have been informed that there were many petroleum spills in the East St. Paul area during the period that encompassed this study and that those petroleum spills were cleaned up by removal of the gas tanks that were causing the spills, so we have to be very careful in not making an association where it has not been proven to exist. Foot and Mouth Disease Provincial Action Plan Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, this morning, at the meeting of legislators from Minnesota, North and South Dakota and Manitoba, foot and mouth disease was discussed. A very virulent strain of this disease has spread to 34 countries in the last 18 months, with disastrous consequences in affected countries. South Dakota shared their proactive action plan released last week. They have, as part of their plan, a series of steps to take immediately an outbreak of foot and mouth disease occurs anywhere outside of South Dakota within North America. I have repeatedly called upon the Minister of Agriculture (Ms.

Wowchuk), for more than a month now, to provide details of the Province of Manitoba's action plan for foot and mouth disease and to display this action plan prominently and clearly on the provincial Web page. ask the minister when she will make available the specifics of the provincial action plan, and when she will display these prominently on the provincial Web page. Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that the member has raised before.

I have indicated in the past to the member we do not have foot and mouth disease in Canada, and the most important step we can take is to ensure or take every step possible that the disease does not come into Canada. This is a disease that falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and our Veterinary Services Branch works very closely with the federal government, as do all of the other provinces in Canada. All of the provinces work closely with the federal government.

I am confident that the plan we have in place, under the responsibility of the federal government, will be adequate to address the issue, and there is information about foot and mouth disease on the Web page. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister: If there is an outbreak of foot

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2245 and mouth disease anywhere in North America outside of Manitoba, will the minister act immediately to implement the same measures as South Dakota has announced in their action plan? That is to immediately prevent people from coming into the province without quarantine where they are coming from a state or a province or a region outside of Manitoba where foot and mouth disease is present and act immediately if there is a foot and mouth disease case elsewhere in North America to prevent any importation of livestock into Manitoba. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Speaker, of course, if there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Canada, governments will take action. Manitoba will take action. But the member seems to forget that this issue falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, under the CFIA, and CFIA takes the lead on it. We are working with them to ensure that there is a plan in place and the necessary steps will be taken, but we also hope that there is no outbreak in Canada. That is the most important issue. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Premier (Mr. Doer).

I ask the Premier, who said at the press conference that he had a very aggressive approach to foot and mouth disease, where is it? Where is your action plan? Why is it not there? You are behind; you need to get it in place and have an action plan that works and that is ready if foot and mouth disease comes to North America. * (14:30) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, order. May I remind all honourable members when the Speaker stands that all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence. Ms.

Wowchuk: After that outburst I am not quite sure how to respond, but I want to tell the member that the federal government has confidence that the plan they have in place is adequate to address foot and mouth disease should we have an outbreak. Should we have an outbreak, the federal government will take the lead and the provinces right across Canada will work very aggressively with the federal government to ensure that the disease does not have a further spread in Canada.

But the major issue is to take every possible step we can to have the disease not enter Canada and be maintained at the disease-free status that we have now. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Maples Collegiate Unity Walk Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): I rise today to recognize the ongoing work that the teachers and students at Maples Collegiate are doing to address the challenges of racism and discrimination. Since 1995 students at Maples Collegiate have participated in a unity group which organizes two major annual events: Unity Day and the March for Unity.

Unity Day is a school-wide event held in conjunction with International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I had the opportunity to speak at this year's Unity Day, and I was very impressed by the work done by students to raise awareness of racism and to celebrate our cultural diversity. Today is the fifth annual March for Unity for students from various schools to walk to the steps of the Legislature to bring their message to members of the Assembly. After walking part of the way with the students, the honourable Minister of Education (Mr.

Caldwell) and I met with the students when they arrived at the Legislature this afternoon. I was honoured to participate in today's march and to support their efforts to end discrimination. I would like to congratulate some of this year's organizers: students Kerri Woloszyn, Meagan Rusnak, Marco Vieira, Hoanglan Vu, Melissa Raposo, Mimi Vu and teachers Cindy Blicq, Fil Costa and Vema Isfeld. The leadership shown by these young people involved in this march is combating racism and discrimination. It is an inspiring example for all of us. Legislators Forum Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): It was my pleasure to participate in the meetings that

2246 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 were just held with our American neighbours. One of the recommendations that came out of the International Flood Mitigation Initiative regarding the Red River basin which was completed in November of 2000 was for the four jurisdictions to get together to meet on a regular basis to discuss the flood mitigation and other policy issues of mutual interest in this area.

Attendees at this first annual Legislators Forum involving the bipartisan representation from neighbouring states of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, as well as an all-party delegation of Manitoba representatives, included our Progr essive Conservative Leader, the Member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Murray) and my colleague from Emerson and myself, the ministers of Finance, Agriculture, Conservation and Sport in Manitoba. I would like to congratulate the Premier (Mr.

Doer), as our leader has done. and Senate Majority Leader Moe from Minnesota for initiating this forum held over the last two days here in Winnipeg, along with Senator Brown of South Dakota and Senator Ken Solbe rg, a veritable neighbour of mine from Rugby, North Dakota. Mr. Speaker, a meeting of this group will again take place, hopefully within a year's time. A committee has been put together to look at the follow-up on some of the findings and results of our program.

Discussions dealt with future flood alleviation, including watershed management and, in particular, a green way on the Red, a program that includes working of a multistate conservation reserve enhancement program, water storage and retention, conservation reserve-style programs for compensation in many of these areas of land set aside and an educational mechanism, including media, to get the message out to our citizens in regard to the importance of this initiative.

Each jurisdiction raised an issue that ranged from energy, tourism, agriculture, and the topic of foot and mouth disease, as pointed out here in this House earlier, was raised by our South Dakota neighbours, a good package put forward by the state of Minnesota, as well as our own Manitoba program.

Whether it was the two nation vacation destination mechanism for tourism and enhancement of the Lewis and Clark program that is coming in 2004, or whether it was Folklorama here in Manitoba, or Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, or the Twins in Minneapolis, there was agreement that a North American approach with emphasis on "North" could be taken in this whole area. Mr. Speaker, I would like to end by saying that we are definitely a region. That was the unified point that came out of this area, and these issues will be followed up on. Thank you. Golden West Centennial Lodge Centenarians Mr.

Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Last week I had the pleasure of attending a celebration at Golden West Centennial Lodge. The reason for this celebration was that seven of the residents are a hundred years old or older in this one institution. It was an excellent event, with the Golden West Auxiliary Lodge staff, many friends and family in attendance to celebrate the lives and accomplishments of these seven amazing ladies. One of the ladies, Dorothy Samuels, still Jives alone and attends the Golden West outreach program regularly. The other six live in the lodge.

I would like to bring all honourable members' attention to these wonderful ladies who I will name in order of age: Kathleen Anderson, 107; Marianne Hodgson, 105; Anna Herms. 10 I; Olive Nevill, 100; Isabel Kossats, 100; Mae Jarvis, 100; Dorothy Samuels, 101. I would like to congratulate the Golden West Centennial Lodge, the family and friends and, most importantly, seven ladies for reaching this milestone of history. It is interesting to note the changes that we talked about during this event and the changes in their lives that have been made in the past century.

These people were born mostly in the 1800s and have had a huge, wonderful life. I would like to congratulate these ladies of attaining 714 years for the seven people. Thank you very much. * (14:40) Missing Children's Week Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Cha rleswood): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2247 remind all honourable members that May 20 to 26 is Missing Children's Week and especially to invite all members to commemorate Friday, May 25, Missing Children's Day. This is a time when the people of Manitoba remember missing children and their families and when we can raise awareness of the potential dangers and protective measures we can take to assure that our children are safe from harm. According to the Missing Children's Registry, in Manitoba, in the year 2000, there were 3680 missing children and, in Canada, over 60 000 missing kids.

The effect of these disappearances has a devastating effect, not only on the victims and their families who must struggle with the fear and pain their loss must cause but also on the communities as a whole who are left with worry and apprehension about the safety of their own loved ones. Today we watch with sympathy the suf fering the Koopmans family is forced to endure as they mourn the loss of their daughter Jessica in Lethbridge, Alberta. Unfortunately, the Koopmans family is not alone in their pain. Across Canada, countless children disappear every single day, and far too many of them never return home.

In order to help protect our children from such dangers, it is important that parents talk to their children and teach them how to avoid potentially dangerous situations. Hazards such as talking to strangers or confiding in people they meet on the Internet can go a long way to ensuring that our children are out of danger's way. So, on the eve of this Missing Children's Day, I would encourage all Manitobans to review their family safety rules and to remember all of the Canadian children who have gone missing and who are still greatly loved and missed by their families and loved ones at home.

This week, we remember Kristen French. Leslie Mahaffy, Michael Dunahee, Sarah Kelly from The Pas, and others, and our thoughts and prayers are with their families. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Full Citizenship: A Manitoba Provincial Strategy on Disab ility Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I want to draw attention to an important initiative of our Government.

On May 4, we released a white paper, "Full Citizenship: A Manitoba Provincial Strategy on Disability." Tomorrow, on May 25, at the Crescentwood community club, a task force begins a series of meetings to hear feed back on this paper for the province to improve employment opportunities and supports for people with disabilities.

I am pleased to be heading up this task force, and I will be joined by the MLAs for Assiniboia, Burrows, Rossmer e and The Maples, to tour Winnipeg, Brandon, Thompson and Steinbach, to ensure Manitobans call tell us face to face if they agree with our ideas and if they have any additional suggestions. This white paper was produced in consultation with Manitobans. One of the key recommendations is to formulate a round table for the new Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities (Mr. Sale) for ongoing planning and feedback from this community.

Secondly, there will be a disabilities lens to ensure that all government policies are analyzed for how they impact on people living with disabilities. It will also co-ordinate through disabilities issues office, work with all government departments as well as the Human Rights Com mission. There will be specific attention paid to Aboriginal people to address the challenges they face for access and supports related to income, employment and access to government. Mr.

Speaker, I know that we will be having extremely interesting meetings given that the launch had an overwhelming response on May 4, and I look forward to hearing from any Manitobans throughout the province on these matters. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DA Y House Business Hon. Tim Sale (Acting Government House Leader): Can you canvass the House to see if there is unanimous consent to allow the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner), to speak a second time on Bill 26, The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Restructuring Act, and that the member be allowed to speak for a full 40 minutes?

2248 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the Member for Steinbach to speak a second time on Bill 26, The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Restructuring Act, and that the member be allowed to speak for a full 40 minutes. [Agreed] Mr. Sale: I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), Mr. Speaker, that the House resolve itself into a Comm ittee of Supply. Motion agreed to. * (15:20) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concu rrent Sections) HEALTH Mr. Chairperson (Harry Schellenberg): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Health. There was a previous agreement of this committee to have a global discussion on the entire department and after completion of all questioning pass all resolutions. We will con tinue with the global discussion. We are open for questions. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairperson, we have brought the staff from the Capital branch of Health. I appreciate the member letting me know this morning that she would be questioning this area, so we will try to do the best we can. Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Cha rleswood): Mr. Chairman, I had indicated to the minister's office when I phoned this morning that would it be possible to have the staf f here for around 4:30. Is that going to be a problem, or you have them here now? Mr. Chomiak: Oh, they are here now. Just hang on a second. Mrs. Driedger: I would like to ask the minister about the Order-in-Council of May 17, 2000. It is in relationship to the hiring of Dr. Ron Hike! as Acting Deputy Minister of Health. It indicates that according to the Order-in-Council: therefore he the president of the Council recommends that Dr.

Ron Hike! be appointed Acting Deputy Minister of Health, effective May 16, 2000, with terms and conditions as set out in an employment agreement that the Clerk of Executive Council be authorized to enter into an employment agreement with Dr. Ron Hike! respecting terms and conditions of employment, and that Order-in-Council 349/1998 is revoked effective May 16, 2000. I wonder if the Minister of Health could tell me whether Dr. Ron Hike! was remunerated by a contract or through a contract or through an employment agreement. Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Chairperson, I am not trying to be difficult, but I do not know what difference the member is making. What is the difference between an employment agreement and a contract? Insofar as from my understanding of law. an employment agreement is a contract and an actual what we classify as a written contract is a contract. So I am not trying to be difficult. I just do not understand what distinction the member is trying to make. Mrs.

Driedger: I guess as far as looking at the specific wording, the Order-in-Council had indicated that it be set out in an employment agreement, and, in fact, it appears he was hired through a contract. Now if, as the minister says, they are both the same, then perhaps that is a non-issue. It would probably be something that I need to just have further clarification on, and perhaps I would make some calls myself just in terms of finding out whether or not the Order-in Council was actually followed appropriately. Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Chairperson, as far as I can recollect, there was a contract with Hampshire Consulting, correct, that I think was made public. The member had a copy of it, and that was the agreement that was entered into between us and Mr. Hike!. Mrs. Driedger: That is accurate. We were able, through Freedom of Information, to obtain Doctor Hikel's contract. It did indicate the con tract with him was actually with his company

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2249 and not directly with him. The Order-in-Council does direct that the employment agreement be set up with Dr. Ron Hike! himself, and yet we find the employment agreement or contract, whichever would be the accurate term, was set up with his company. What I am wondering is if in fact the Order-in-Council therefore was not followed as it is stated. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, as I understand it, Mr. Hike! was the sole individual, director, person, the only person at that particular company.

It was a company of which he was the sole proprietor, the sole comptroller, the sole shareholder. He did work under that company's name. Mrs. Driedger: While that certainly could be technically accurate, and it being relatively new to the Legislature, I guess it begged a question for me in terms of whether or not the Order-in-Council was being accurately followed when it said that Doctor Hike! was to be appointed and yet the contract was set up with his company.

It indicated that, I believe, if we look at The Civil Service Act, if we are looking at that, it indicates that Doctor Hike! should have been hired as an employee, but there is no Order-in-Council showing that he was hired as an employee, that in fact it was his company. I am wondering if there was any other legislation that might have been used in setting up this particular contract with the acting deputy minister. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, insofar as I do not have the Order-in-Council in front of me, let me see if I understand correctly. The member is saying there was the Order-in-Council between Mr.

Hike! and the Government. It would be purs.uant to an agreement. The member is asking whether or not this is correct. As I understand it, from what the member is saying, there was an agreement with Ron Hike! under Order-in Council that was pursuant to an agreement. Is that correct? Mrs. Driedger: Actually the Order-in-Council indicated the appointment of Dr. Ron Hike! as Acting Deputy Minister of Health, effective May 16, 2000, with terms and conditions as set out in an employment agreement. It appears that the Order-in-Council may not directly have been followed because the contract was actually set up with Dr.

Ron Hike!, and whether or not the contract is the same as an employment agreement I guess is something that I am not totally clear about. Either through the minister or on my own, I would be seeking clarification. My concern, I guess, with all of this is whether or not Doctor Hike! had authority to do his job, if in fact there may be some technicalities in all of this that show the Order-in-Council was not followed, because of just the way the contract was set up and that it was not set up with the individual but with his company.

Then The Civil Service Act and The Department of Health Act provide for the deputy minister to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. Therefore, I wonder if Ron Hike) may not have had authority under either act. I am wondering, then, if the Department of Health ignored the Order-in Council and hired Hampshire Consulting I guess, which, technically, I question whether that is in contravention of the Order-in-Council. * (15 :30) Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, what I understand from what the member is saying is that an Order-in-Council entered into with Mr.

Ron Hike! that was pursuant to an employment agreement, is suggesting that that was technically incorrect. I think that from what the member has explained to me, from what I heard, the Order-in-Council indicated that Mr. Ron Hike! was hired pursuant to an employment agreement. I think that is common practice in government to have an Order-in-Council pur suant to an employment agreement. I think that became standard practice, as I recall, under the previous government that civil servants would be hired pursuant to Orders-in-Council, then pursuant to employment agreements.

From what I understand from what the member is saying, it sounds to me like it is a standard practice. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I will leave this line of questioning at this point in time. I will seek to do some clarification on my own in regard to these particular issues. I would like to go on to another issue and that is around the nursing acts, whether it is the

2250 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 R.N. act, the LPN act, psychiatric nurses act, and ask the minister when he is intending to proclaim the acts. I understand from the meeting he had with the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses the other day that he indicated August 15 at least for their act, and I am wondering if the minister could provide us with some information as to when he will actually be proclaiming all three of those acts. Mr.

Chomiak: I attended at the MARN annual convention in Brandon last week, and at the annual convention I indicated to the nurses, who were very pleased, that in fact we would proclaim the act by August 15 or sooner subject to the finalization of regulations with respect to the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses act. I also am intending to do likewise with the various other nurses' acts as well as a couple of other acts as soon as and dependent upon the ability to finalize some regulations with respect to those acts.

I have been giving every indication that the finalization of regulation, the intent and the general wording is correct but that we are subject to legislative counsel time constraints because of drafting priorities in other areas. So I have sort of gone out on a limb to a certain extent to indi cate that we will do it by August I 5.

I did advise each association that there might be some delays because of the drafting provisions but that we would do everything in our power to have the acts proclaimed by August 15 or sooner if in fact we could finalize the specific wording of the regulations concerning those particular acts. So that is the information that I provided to the various licensing bodies and indicated to them that that was a time frame upon which we were working.

I also had indicated at the MARN convention that, if there was difficulty in terms of proclamation of the acts, I would at least try to get the MARN act proclaimed by August 15. If there were difficulties with the drafting of regulations for the other two acts, the MARN act would probably be proclaimed first, although, quite frankly, insofar as the regulatory changes are consistent across most acts, I am hoping that it will not be a difficult process to in fact do that. But it is subject to legislative drafting priorities, and we are trying to see if we could accom modate the needs.

I had made a previous commitment that I would try to have the acts proclaimed prior to the next registration year, which means the August 15 deadline is very important to try to achieve. We in Health are going to make every effort that we can to adhere to and to achieve that particular deadline. So that is basically the situation with respect to the particular acts. Mrs.

Driedger: I understand that the minister got a standing ovation for making those comments at the MARN meeting and that the registered nurses were certainly very appreci ative of the commitment that he was making to have those acts proclaimed by August 15. I think that the other two nursing regulatory bodies would certainly be appreciative of having their acts proclaimed at the same time because certainly that would seem to make the most sense. I am wondering what is taking so long in terms of the regulations.

I understand that there were not a lot of changes, that a lot of homework had been done by all three regulatory bodies. There was certainly concern amongst all three regulatory bodies about what appeared to be some real foot-dragging on the issue and wondered why it is taking so long to have all of these regulations dealt with. The minister has indicated that the legal people within the department are really busy, but really when we look at the legislative agenda right now it is not particularly heavy.

I would wonder what is taking two years in terms of proclaiming these acts because certainly when they were brought forward back in 1999 the minister was totally in favour of them, was supportive of quick passage, did not seem to have any problems with them at the time. Now it just seems a bit suspicious that we are two years down the road, and the nursing professions are actually getting quite, quite concerned about why this is taking so long.

So I would like to ask the minister: Why are the regulations taking so long to get into place when in fact according to the regulatory bodies there really was not that much to be done with them? All their homework had been done. *( 15:40)

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 225 1 Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I know that the member stood up in the House on several occasions and pronounced the fact that the regulations were done and that we ought to pass the acts immediately. I indicated that there was work to be done. I have had conversations with a variety of people, even colleagues of the member, with respect to the acts. There were a number of issues that we wished to have dealt with, with respect to the acts and the regulations. We had discussions with the regulatory bodies concerning some of these issues.

In terms of responsibility or my responsibility, I think it is very important that we examined, and I thought it was very important that we examine when we came into office, the various issues affecting us and review some of the legislation and some of the practices that had been put in place. In fact, I think it was incumbent upon us to do that. I should indicate that in the first 30 days or so, in fact, in the period leading up to the actual transition, I was advised, for example, of

an act that needed to be proclaimed. I had recalled as critic that we had passed that particular act unanimously. I gave my authority in a transition stage to the proclamation of that particular act. Upon assuming office, I then had part of that community get back to me and complain to me about some provisions of that act that ought to have been put in place prior to the actual proclamation. So I learned a lesson. That was that, even though we had supported that particular act in opposition, once assuming office and we had an opportunity to view the landscape and to view the situation.

There were conditions that had changed, and there were conditions that had to be assured, before proclamation of particular acts. So I think it is prudent, and it was prudent, to review some of the aspects of the act. think it is very interesting, Mr. Chairperson, that today and over the past year with respect to, for example, the Sinclair inquiry and other matters affecting us day to day in health care that issues of professional licensing bodies are paramount and are very, very much a factor with respect to the health care system. There have been some changes. There has been some need.

In fact, just today when we released the Thomas report, there were suggestions, and there are suggestions, that there may be need to amend a particular regulatory body's act. So in this context, in fact, I received information from groups about changing some regulatory acts. So to jump in completely and proclaim acts when there were some matters that had to be reviewed and there were some concerns would have not been prudent. So, with respect to the acts, I indicated that I would be reviewing them. There were some concerns that I had with respect to the acts that I wanted to discuss with the regulatory bodies.

We had a long series of discussions. I can indicate that even as recently as several weeks ago there were some issues concerning the acts and the regulations that we had not been able to resolve. In fact, we were very close to bringing in legislation amending at least one of the acts in order to resolve a particular delicate situation.

Fortunately, through negotiation, through good will, and through working together and through the profession alism of the various regulatory bodies we were able to resolve these issues to everyone's satisfaction and we were able to then proceed to draft regulations that were required to be drafted in this regard. The member indicates that she thinks that the legislative people are not very busy. I can tell her that is not in fact the case. They are very busy and there is a long list of things that they must do and they must work on and that they are prioritizing.

It therefore makes the drafting of the regulations-some regulations are drafted, but not all the regulations are drafted. Some of them require drafting. That is, in fact, the task that we are undertaking. Fortunately, we were able to negotiate a successful conclusion to some of the issues raised, and we were able to then take those results and forward them to legislative draftspeople in order to have the regulations drafted. I am pleased, and I think that the organizations are pleased, that they could proceed under their new legislation.

I do not think that it is prudent to suggest that one automatically proclaims acts upon assuming office, or that one does not reconsider or review particular acts based on changes or based on developments. I think it would be

2252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 imprudent to do that. So I am pleased, because what I think has resulted is a better act and a better situation that has occurred as a result of our discussions and our negotiations. Contrary to what might be suggested, I think that we have done and we have been able to achieve a better outcome to our legislation and an improved outcome in order to permit us to move forward. Mrs. Driedger: I certainly do not argue with the minister that it is prudent to review aspects of the act as a new government when they came in.

I believe from looking through his Hansard comments during the debate on the acts, that he was very, very supportive of them, and certainly did not give any indication that he had any concerns at that point in time. But, as a new government coming in, I would agree with him and support that a new government should take some time and review things, and he did not want to jump in and proclaim them right away and I support that. I guess I am just wondering whether or not two years is just a bit long for this.

Certainly, he has indicated that he had some concerns that I guess came to light after he became the Minister of Health and he did not feel it was prudent to proceed with that. I wonder if he is willing to share with us, what conditions changed. He indicated that some conditions had changed, and I wondered what those conditions might be that would have made this project take two years before-in fact it is going to be even more than two by the time the acts are proclaimed. *( 15:50) Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, a number of issues have changed with respect to nursing in the past two years.

For example, we are training as I have indicated, double the amount of nurses than when the member left office. We have expanded, we have provided funding for nurses in terms of upgrading their education. We have a task force exa mining nursing conditions. We have successfully concluded negotiations to bring nurses to Manitoba in order to augment the nursing shortage that had started in the '90s and because of cutbacks in enrolment, it had got even worse in the last several years.

In addition, there were a number of factors concerning mixes of nurses, as well as condi tions concerning the agreement on internal trade, although I do not know if we have resolved all of those issues with respect to these particular regulations. There were all kinds of matters that have been referred to me for a long period of time since I have been in office respecting nurses. There is also the larger issue of the public requmng more accountability of professional bodies. We have been very con scious of this, particularly in light of Sinclair, and right across the gamut.

I just note for the record that a former Minister of Justice brought in a law reform commission report that reviewed all professional bodies and suggested different approaches to professional bodies. That was brought in by Minister McCrae when he was the minister responsible. So there are a variety of concerns, and the world does not stay the same. There are significant changes almost on a daily basis. We see that in our approach to health care. We are not locked into the old method of closing beds and going privatization, which seems to be the mantra.

We are looking at change on a daily basis in our health care system and evolving on a daily basis in our health care system. Needs and demands are changing on a daily basis. In addition, there were concerns that were brought to our attention concerning some matters of how the various professional acts applied and how there was representation. We wanted to canvass that particular issue. There has been a move towards a more arms-length agreement with professional bodies. At the same time, there are demands on the system to make professional bodies more accountable to the system.

Those are two conflicting patterns of developments that have occurred. For a variety of reasons, Mr. Chairperson, we reviewed the acts. We took our time to do it properly. We had long negotiations and we successfully conclud ed. As the member indicated, when I spoke last week at the MARN convention they were very pleased with the fact we would be proclaiming the act shortly. Mrs. Driedger: Certainly some of the things the minister has indicated make me wonder how that has anything to do with proclaiming the act. Some of those are just issues that are out there.

The public wants more accountability from nurses, well, that is what the act will actually

May 24, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2253 help to create. So I do not understand how that is a regulation that slows things down, or a piece of the act that slows things down, because a number of those issues are very well dealt with in the acts. Certainly, the acts have an opportunity to enhance patient care and help to improve the system through some of the changes that are in them. One would hope there is not a lot more stalling on this, because there is an opportunity here for the acts to have a positive impact on nursing.

I would like to ask the minister if he would indicate what it meant when his Assistant Deputy Minister, Rick Dedi, spoke in November to some LPNs. He had indicated to them: We are coming here to say we are not going to proclaim the acts as they are. We are going to make amendments. That is one thing. We are also saying that the amendments we are making are not specific for one nursing profession. They are going to be the same for all three nursing professions. We are also saying that this is the first opportunity to make those changes.

Some of those changes, likely the one on the minister's power to adjust regulation, will be in all subsequent legislation, and we may, and this is a big one, and we may make that change-now it says Ombudsman, but I think it maybe means omnibus way-to all professional acts, although God knows trying to do it to the College of Physicians and Surgeons without being shot with a cannon-but anyway, the point is, we are trying to make for all health professions, those changes. Can the minister indicate what Mr. Dedi was meaning with all of that?

Obviously back in November there was some movement to make some what sounds like pretty significant changes, and it was certainly something that I was a little bit surprised to hear about at the time. Is this still where we are going in terms of looking at the regulations? Is this why things are taking so long, because the minister is wanting more power to adjust regulation? Is that what is going to be happening in the new regulations? Mr. Chomiak: Well, I do not know where to start, Mr. Chairperson.

The member made refer ence to the acts and some of the positive benefits of the acts, and I just say to the member you have to look at the total, big picture. You cannot just focus on specific, one issues. There is a large picture here, and there is interplay between a lot of these issues that have impact right across the health care field. That is our responsibility, and we take it very seriously. We look at the bigger picture and the interplay between some of the component parts.

So, while the member would have us rush in and proclaim the acts without any further discussion or any review of change in conditions, I would say that is improvement, and I say that is not the way to manage or to govern a system. So I reject that particular solution. As I indicated to the member, I indicated in my comments that there were negotiations about some different aspects of the legislation.

I indicated to the member that as recently as a couple of weeks ago there was still consideration given to a particular amendment of the act, and if that amendment were to take place the amendment would have taken place in this Chamber. There would have been debate and public hearings, and there would have been opportunity to discuss whether or not that change should take place, and it would have been voted upon and determined. As it turned out, we were able to achieve what we think is a better solution via regulation.

The member should know that regulations change on a regular basis, almost on a daily basis, and situations change and regulations change. We entered into discussions with the various professional groups and reviewed, and we provided them with information. We discussed, we negotiated, we worked on it, and in the end we were able to achieve mutually satisfactory conclusions. There were agreements by all parties to the changes, and there are some regulatory changes that resulted. The reference to the omnibus legislation, I made that reference in my previous answer.

I indicated to the member that a report was brought down by one of her colleagues that suggested omnibus regulations. That was a Law Reform Commission of Manitoba recommen dation that came down and talked about omnibus regulations. I am in fact informed that at one time the Department of Health was actually

2254 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 2001 considering omnibus regulations when the member was a member of the government, that they had looked at that particular option prior to reviewing and entering into the new regulations and the new acts that are the subject of discussions today. * (16: 00) Again, the member has to understand, even today during the course of the Thomas comm it tee there are suggestions of possible changes to professional acts. This is not a static process. This is a system that evolves and changes. There are different views, and we canvass those views.

The assistant deputy minister, at that time, was meeting with each of the professional bodies to discuss potential changes, proposed changes, possible changes. This is what negotiation is all about. In the end, we concluded favourably with some changes that we think will improve, let me reiterate, we think will improve the acts in question. We have agreement on that, and we are proceeding to proc laim. I think that is a satisfactory solution for all concerned.

It could very well be that, as I said today, even in today during the review of the Thomas committee report, there are all kinds of recommendations, some of which actually have legislative implication that we may have to change some legislation. But we think we have been able to achieve our goals and proclaim the acts and allow the new acts to be proclaimed and for nurses to function under the new acts. That is my response, Mr. Chairperson. Mrs.

Driedger: Could the minister tell me if he is looking at seeking power to adjust regulations to try, according to what his ADM said, to do it to the College of Physicians and Surgeons without being shot with a cannon? Is the minister looking for power to adjust regulation at that level, and is that holding up anything with the nursing acts? Mr. Chomiak: No. Mrs.

Driedger: His assistant deputy minister also indicated to the nurses at this meeting, and he was specifically talking about the regulations and the changes in the regulations, he says: The reason we want them there is that-and this is coming maybe more from the recent intro duction of the diploma program-there is concern that we would not be able to continue our diploma program. That is one example. Can the minister tell me if that has anything to do with sitting on these regulations for two years? Is the lack of approval of the diploma program playing any role in this? Mr.

Chomiak: We have not sat on these regulations for two years. Mrs. Driedger: Could the minister make his answer perhaps a little bit longer and indicate whether or not, as his assistant deputy minister indicated, the reason we want them there is that and this is coming maybe more from the recent introduction of the diploma program-there is concern that we would not be able to continue our diploma program? That is one example. Can the minister indicate if the reason he is stalling on the regulations has something to do with him waiting for MARN to approve the diploma program? Mr.

Chomiak: I will take the opportunity to lengthen my response to the member so she can clearly understand the circumstances of the situation. First off. we are not stalling. You know, the member used that word and I think that is an inappropriate word. We are not stalling on the passage of the regulations. I have just provided the member with an indication that we are planning to proclaim the acts by August 15 or sooner, depending upon the drafting of legislation. Now first the member said she did not believe that the draftspersons were that busy. They are that busy.

Then the member said we are sitting on the regulations. And I said we have been negotiating, Mr. Chairperson. I even indi cated as recently as a couple of weeks ago, we were still involved in negotiations in this regard. But still the member insists on using the word "stalling." With reference to the diploma program, I am glad that the member brought up the diploma program. I am still waiting to see why the mem ber has such opposition to the diploma program. Point of Order Mrs.

Driedger: The minister continues, and this just seems to be a continuation from last year's Estimates, to constantly take every chance he

May 24, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 2255 can to put on the record and otherwise that we oppose the nursing program. The minister has never heard that out of anybody's mouth. Again, I go back to the reason I have to ask questions in my job as an accountable opposition. Just because I ask questions, and he was very crafty about this all last Estimates, he is continuing to behave the same way any time he gets a chance to talk about this. He still really does not have a clue where we stand on the issue of the two-year diploma program, because what we do in opposition is ask questions.

I believe that is my role. That is the expectation of the public around this issue. The minister can take pot shots on this all he likes but the fact is in opposition we have an obligation to ask questions. Because I ask a question one way or the other, I would encour age the minister not to make assumptions and put words in my mouth about what he thinks I mean or do not mean. All I am doing is asking questions. I would expect a direct and honest answer. Mr. Chomiak: Certainly the member will get direct and honest answers.

I agree with the member that it is very hard that the Opposition party does not have a clue about many policy issues. I agree with her on that assertion. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. On this point of order raised by the honourable Member for Charleswood, I must advise that there is no point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members of the purpose of a point of order. A point of order is to bring to the Chairperson's attention a breach of the rules. Points of order are not a time for debate.

I would like to ask all honourable members for their co operation. *** Mr. Chomiak: To continue my response to the member concerning the points, I listened very carefully to what the member stated. The member said we were stalling after I advised the member that we were in negotiations and we had been in negotiations as recently as a couple of weeks ago. I do not how much clearer I have to be, but the member still persists in putting on the record a point of view, I suppose, one way or the other.

So it is very difficult to know and it makes it very awkward to answer questions when the member hears an answer and completely rejects the answer or seeks to not pay any attention to it. But to continue, the member asked about the diploma program. The member mentioned the diploma program. I was simply stating a fact. But to return to the issue of the diploma program, the diploma program, as I understand it, has been approved. I want to indicate that it has been from all indications an overwhelming success with respect to the nurses.

It is one of the reasons why we think we have-we do not think, we know-statistically we have many more nurses in training than at any time in the past few years. There has been an increase in enrolment as a result of the diploma program and at the BN program. We are very pleased that we finally reversed the trend of declining nurse education and declining programs and declining enrolments and that we are going to build up in the future for the significant shortfalls and shortages that have occurred in the health care system.

There were a series of issues with respect to the acts that I indicated several answers ago that we are dealing with, that we are negotiating with, and that we successfully concluded that will result and that will see passage of the various acts very soon, and we think have sought to ameliorate, that is improve the functioning of the act, and I am very pleased that has occurred. I am very pleased that we were able to discuss these issues and negotiate these issues, and I make no apologies from a policy sense for trying to improve the situation and dealing with the situation.

As I had indicated, these situations are not static. They are constantly changing; there are constantly new developments. The acts will be proclaimed as I indicated subject to legal drafting of some regula tions. We are targeting for August 15, certainly for the MARN, and I am very hopeful that we can also achieve it with the other acts. It would be really helpful if we could, and we are trying our best efforts in order to do that. Mrs. Driedger: Could the minister tell me then: Is Mr. Dedi's statement accurate? This is talking

2256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 200 1 about the changes in the regulations or the minister's power over regulations. He is saying: The reason we want them there is that-and this is coming maybe more from the recent introduction of the diploma program-there is concern that we would not be able to continue our diploma program. That is one example. Would the minister concur with Mr. Dedi's statement to nurses at a meeting that in fact he wanted to change regulations in order to ensure that the diploma program would then be approved, as Mr. Dedi is saying? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Chairperson, I would have to see the exact quotes, confirm that they were in fact quotes, see the context in which they were uttered. I have had too many experiences of members taking quotes out of context or quoting information that was not reflective of what actually was said. So this is meant with no disrespect, but I think it is only fair that I have the opportunity to review not only the specific quotes but the context in which the quotes were made in order to give a reasoned response to that particular question. Mrs.

Driedger: Well, that is a good way to avoid answering the question, but it looks a little bit obvious here. It appears now that the diploma program has been approved. The minister has just indicated that, and it now looks like MARN gets to have their act proclaimed by August 15. But he is indicating then that that is not the same with the other two regulatory bodies. I have to wonder then, and I will ask the minister: Can he assure Manitobans that this ongoing delay with the other two regulatory bodies is in no way politically motivated in order to gamer leverage against them? * (16:10 ) Mr.

Chomiak: This causes difficulty, Mr. Chairperson. Yesterday the member quoted from a letter and read it into the record and asked me to look at a letter. She did not include certain aspects of the letter that when I read it in context resulted in me having a different perspective than what the member read. So I am not going to take the member's quotes and comments out of context. I will look at them. Now the member is speculating about a whole series of political motivations. That may be the way the member operated when she was in government.

That may be the way the previous government operated in terms of political motivations, but our goal and our objective is to try to provide the best quality health care to Manitobans under the circum stances that we can. The member can make allegations about political motivation, but it has been my experience that good policies are generally good politics, that if you proceed to try to factually do the best job you can, that is generally good politics.

So for the member to start accusing of political motivations, and talk about delays, when I have indicated we have been in discus sions, can get us into a battle here. The member said earlier that I was avoiding answering the question. I said if the member would give me the specific information, if I could see the context and the quotes, I would refer to it. I am not going to simply holus-bolus respond to

interpretations of written text from I do not know where by the member, and comment on it, or comment on government policy, as indicated by the member, without having an opportunity to both review the particular statements, the source of those statements, and the actual context in which those statements were made. I do not think that is appropriate, and I do not think that is correct. So I do not know how the member can accuse me of avoiding an answer. I outlined to the member that I would like that information.

Generally when we refer to documents, certainly in the House, when you refer to a written correspondence in the House, you have to table it. Earlier in Question Period the member talked about some telephone conversation she had had, and purportedly quoted it. I could do that pretty regularly about telephone conversations that I have had and quote from what those telephone conversations are, but the member would have no way of knowing if in fact that was actually factual.

So I do not think the member can accuse me of not answering the question when all I ask for is clarification and more information with respect to the quotes the member made.

May 24, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 2257 Secondly, for the member to suggest that the negotiations were "politically motivated," I do not think is appropriate, in terms of this particular process. The member seems to find political motivation behind every decision. That may have been the way that they operated when they were in government. That is not the way that we operate in government. Mrs. Driedger: The minister certainly seemed a little extra sensitive about that. I was not making an accusation. All I asked was his assurances. It was quite simple and straightforward.

All I wanted was his assurance that the delays were in no way politically motivated in order to gamer leverage against any organization. I was not making an accusation that that was happening. All I was asking for was his assurance that that was not the case. I am surprised that the minister jumped on that as sensitively as he did. I guess that is his right. I was speaking with a nurse last night, I will say, however. The nurse reminded me how often this minister talked about respect for nurses.

She indicated to me that, since the 19 80s, she has never encountered a government that has been as disrespectful to nurses as this one is. I guess I am wondering why will the minister not show more respect for the nursing professions who are anxiously awaiting these acts. These acts are 20 years old. There is a good opportunity to improve care with enhanced acts. I would just ask the minister why will he not show more respect for the nursing professions who are anxiously awaiting these acts, and just get out there and proclaim all three. Mr.

Chomiak: I just spent 45 minutes discussing with the member the issues concerning the proclamation of these acts. I do not want to spend another 45 minutes repeating the answers to the member. The member then makes a sta tement on record that a nurse made a comment. Everyone is entitled to their comments. All I know is that I have a report in front of me that was provided to the Legislature that said in 19 98, and I am quoting: We desperately need more qualified caregivers at the bedside. Over the past several years, approximately 10 00 nurses have been laid off by government.

In addition, many nurses, whether laid-off or new grads, left the province to seek nursing jobs elsewhere, primarily in the U.S. Mr. Chair, statistics show that a total out migration in the early '90s of registered nurses, for example, exceeded the total number of newly registered, including new Manitoba graduates. Young people planning their careers no longer see the nursing profession as a potentially satis fying career choice. Job prospects are poor. Full-time employment is almost unattain able.

With the growing use of casual nurses in hospital and personal care homes, many nurses juggle several positions in several institutions, being able to secure casual work at each. The workload and stress factors alone make the profession less attractive to potential nursing students. The prospect of working a profession where those presently practising say they cannot give good care, they are not always able to meet basic standards of practice required to maintain their licences frightens me.

These factors, in combination with years of rollbacks to nursing salaries and compensation packages has resulted in the current shortage of nurses. Let me repeat: these factors, in combination with years of rollbacks to nursing salaries and compensation packages has resulted in the current shortage of nurses. That is a report that was provided in the Legis lature, April 19 98, after 10 years of the member's colleagues leading the nursing profession. So, Mr. Chairperson, everyone and every individual is entitled to their opinion.

The nurse the member spoke to might be entitled to her opinion, is entitled to her opinion. Certainly, that is the member's opinion obviously, but I just indicate and I indicated today in Question Period what we have done since we obtained office for nurses. The members constantly deny this report that was provided in the Legislature in April 19 98. Remember, these were not my words. These are the words of the very people that the member quoted from in her questions in Question Period today, the very people. You cannot have it both ways.

You cannot quote the MNU one day and say we are doing something, but what the MNU said a couple of years ago is not true, because the only difference is that when

2258 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 200 1 you were in government and the MNU made those claims, the member rejected it, as did the previous government. So you cannot have this selective memory and the selective use of quotes. So that individual is entitled to her opinion, Mr. Chairperson. I have indicated that we have listened to nurses. The two top things that nurses said to us when we came to office were bring back the diploma program. Now, it was not me out front; it was the Conservative Party out front that was speaking to the protesters when they rallied here against the diploma program.

We brought it in. The applications were monu mental, and we are now training double the number of nurses that have been trained in the past decade. Now, I do not know, if we had continued the same practice as members opposite, we would have been in even more trouble than we are in. Secondly, nurses said get us more educa tional funding, and we allocated the $3 million from the Nursing Recruitment and Retention Fund to get education to nurses. We put in place a task force to examine nursing conditions. We actively and very purposely and aggressively recruited of fshore in order to augment the nursing situation.

I know the member does not like us to change regulations, but we changed the regulations to permit nurses to sit on boards of certain agencies and authorities, Mr. Chair. We have nurses sitting on boards of directors of major health care institutions, something that members opposite by regulation were not permitting. Just to make a point about the way regulations change, had we not changed that regulation, we would not have been able to do that, but we came into office and changed the regulation, and I do not apologize that we changed the regulations. So, Mr.

Chairperson, the member may have a take on the situation. The member may have spoken to a nurse who says what the member says that that nurse said. We are working on a regular basis with nurses, on a regular basis, to improve the situation. It is very clear and we hear it over and over again, that if there had not been such terrible circumstances that prevailed in the 19 90s, we would not be in this situation we are with respect to nursing and nursing shortages and nursing difficulties, but we have to deal with what we have. That is why we have been very active in this field.

Today the member indicated there are not enough full-time jobs. I acknowledged there are not enough full-time jobs, Mr. Chairperson, but there is more than there was when the member was in office. I am not going to campaign and champion that. I am not going to campaign and champion that and rub it in to members opposite.

The fact is that is what I understand, and there will be more action in this area. * (1 6:20) Clearly we are going to have to disagree, but have to indicate that if we continued the policies that the members opposite had doggedly pursued over the 19 90s, if we had kept cutting nursing programs, if we had not actively put in place active nurses' plans, if we had not brought back the diploma program, if we had allowed programs to deteriorate, we would have been in worse shape. That is what the public voted for in September 19 99, for a change in our policy approach to health care, Mr. Chairperson.

I am the first to admit that we are not perfect. You know, Mr. Chairperson, I said in the House today that we had to do better, and the members, they were gleeful. They were gleeful. I guess being frank is something that members opposite do not understand. I said we have not done as good as I would like, but we have done better than members opposite, and we are going to continue to do better. The members opposite have to acknowledge that this report, when it was tabled in April 19 98 in the Legislature, was significant. You know, it is in writing.

It is ironic that the same people that the member quoted today were the people that provided this information, this report. So, Mr. Chairperson, clearly there are situations where we can improve. We are working at it every single day and will continue to work at it every single day, but we will not do what I saw happen during the '90s and pretend

May 24, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 2259 there are no problems and pretend that there is nothing wrong and there is nothing that needs to be fixed. Because when you start to pretend there are no problems and you do not realize that there are things that can be fixed, you do not do anything about it. That is unfortunately what happened through much of the late '90s. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the minis ter again in that little speech that he gave certainly put some words in my mouth. There is nowhere I have ever said I do not like regulations to be changed.

I do not know where he got that from, other than the fact I am questioning regulations today. All of a sudden he is spinning this way out of control to indicate that I do not like regulations to be changed. That is a stretch. I am not sure how he goes from my questions to that comment, but in fact just for the record, let us just say that nothing stays static. When one is looking at im provements in anything, I appreciate that changes have to be made. The minister has a tendency to shoot the messenger. When I had indicated this nurse spoke to me last night, those were her words.

She had indicated she has been a nurse for a long time and she indicated to me that this Government was the most disrespectful towards nurses since the '80s. Again, I am the messenger of that. I thought it was important that the minister hear what a nurse out there has to say. The report that the minister is ref erencing, I was not an elected official at the time that was tabled in the House. I would wonder if the minister would be able to provide me with a copy of that report from April 19 98? I am assuming it is from the Manitoba Nurses' Union.

I would be very interested in having a look at the report and in what they have to say. I do want to say that I appreciate the efforts of all nursing groups that work hard to improve the health care situation in Manitoba, whether it is believing and working hard to improve conditions for nurses or whether it is groups working hard to create a better health care system overall. I appreciate the efforts of everybody in trying to look at health care in Manitoba. You know, I applaud when people put passion behind what they do.

I am not going to ever argue against that, but if the minister would be prepared, I would very much appreciate seeing a copy of that particular report. The minister has also talked about the diploma program being approved. I have not seen anything in the news about that. I wondered if the minister could give us an indication as to when that program was approved. Mr. Cbomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I certainly will undertake to provide the member with a copy of that particular report. It was striking at the time what happened, and it was unfortunate.

Maybe it would have been better if the member had been in the Chamber at that time, because the government of the day refused to acknowledge it, refused to look at it, and refused to deal with it. It was unfortunate, because it identified a whole series of problems and difficulties that had they been dealt with earlier would have caused us less difficulty today. So I would be very pleased to provide the member with a copy of that. With respect to the approval of the diploma program, I was verbally advised that in fact it was approved. I am going through my memory. I will have to just confirm that.

When I say I am going from memory, I know it has in fact been approved. I just want to confirm the actual details of that for the member. I will endeavour to provide the member with that information. Mrs. Driedger: I understand that when the program started, there were going to be 90 students. I understood that they may have accepted 97 students. The assistant deputy min ister at the time had indicated that he expected I believe it was a 25% attrition rate, or he said 30 percent and the minister said 25 percent. It was one or the other or both of them saying 25 percent to 30 percent.

I am wondering if the minister has any idea of what that attrition rate has been in the first year? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, now I am going totally from memory on this, but from my understanding, the attrition rate has been remarkably low. In fact, I think I am correct in saying the attrition rate has been less than that in the regular BN program and that they have been

2260 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 200 1 quite pleased with the ratios, and I am also going from memory here, but I believe, for the few that left the program, they have been replaced by LPNs who are, in fact, enhancing their skills, so that is my recollection of that particular information. Mrs. Driedger: I wonder if the minister would be willing to do a bit more checking into that. I do know that there was bad feeling with the LPNs and that there had been some that had dropped out of the program.

I wonder if we could have, of the original numbers who had entered the program, how many of those original people had actually dropped out, and how much of that was backfilled with LPNs. I do under stand that it is probably a fairly intensive program, and it is probably something we should all be watching in terms of the challenges that these students have to face. I wondered if the minister would be willing to provide us with that. *( 16: 30) Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I will undertake to provide that information.

It is contrary to questions and advice that was given to me in the Chamber by particular members in respect to the program. It appears to be functioning much more effectively than particular comments that have been made concerning the program, and I certainly will try to get that specific information. The member can continue her line of questioning.

I am not trying to preclude anything she may want to do, but I want to indicate that Chris Hauch, the acting director, and Marie O'Neill, the senior planner of capital projects, have joined us, so I am not trying to determine when the member goes down the Capital line but just advise her that those particular people are here. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, no, that is as we had indicated earlier. We are quite prepared to set aside the time right now to look at some of that, and I will save my questions on that for a little while and defer the questioning right now to my colleague. Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr.

Chairman, sometimes I feel like sitting in southeastern Manitoba that there is some kind of a government vendetta against the health care system, but I guess, when the minister repeats himself often enough, I think he actually believes what he is saying. I would say that the questions that we need to answer in regard to the dilemma for health care in southeast and maybe other rural areas would start with, can the minister provide me with information, what the average cost per person is for the southeast regional health authority? I believe there are 52 000 people under their area. Mr.

Chomiak: I do not know what reference the member is making to a vendetta. It may be that there was a vendetta under the previous government to the region. I cannot speak to that, Mr. Chairperson, but certainly that is not the case. That is not even part of my vocabulary, so to suggest vendetta, and I am not being even facetious on this one. I think the use of that word is, you know, Mr.

Chairperson, I do not think it is appropriate, but that is a question of judgment, but to suggest that a government has a vendetta against a particular region is not, I think, appropriate, and that may have been the way the former government operated, but that is not the way this Government operates. The South Eastman region, contrary to the member's statement in the House when he said the region is not asking for more money, I believe, to paraphrase what the member said, we recognized that there was a significant shortfall in the funding.

There has historically been a significant shortfall in the South Eastman and North Eastman, I believe, and we identified that when we came into office. In fact, as I recall, when the region was forced, several months ago to do some changes in terms of delivery of programs, they indicated that the reason for the problems had started in the '90s. We cannot in one year, or even in two years, overcome some of the legacy of the shortfalls that occurred. We did do significant negotiations with that region to try to deal with their budget situation.

As a share and a percentage of increase we gave them more this year, as I recall, than other years. With respect to the per capita costs per individual, I will take a look at that particular information, but I can tell you that that is one way of calculating a particular need and requirement. There are a whole series of other ways of

May 24, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 2261 calculating needs and requirements that might give a better reflection than necessarily per capita spending. Mr. Jim Penner: Let me try again. There is an average cost in each health authority for the per person average to the cost of the Province for that region. I am just wondering if I could find out what the amount of money is per person that is paid to the Eastman or Sou th Eastman Regional Health Authority. Mr. Chomiak: I will just repeat part of what I said in my previous response.

I said I would undertake to try to find out that information for the member. I have the Capital people here, so I do not know if I actually have that information now quite at hand. I guess I do not, Mr. Chairperson. Now you know, Mr. Chairperson, just in regard to this issue, I will undertake to determine that issue. There are a variety ofways of measur ing allocations and per capita is one of them. Mr.

Jim Penner: I thought we were prepared to deal with some money matters today, and that is capital, and obviously the amount of money that we have for beds, the amount of money that we have for extended care, the amount of money we have for personal care, the amount of money we have for equipment, and all the capital costs and operating, it boils down to a cost per person. It seems to me that it would be responsible for the minister to understand that he would know what each region's cost per person was. I have a hard time believing that he is that incompetent that he would not know the cost per person.

Do we know the cost per person, Mr. Chairman, for the Province? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, far be it for me to suggest-the member opposite is experienced in a number of things-that that is the one solution. But for the member to suggest that per capita expenditures per person is the way of judging the way we allocate funding in our health care system completely, I think is perhaps reflective of some of the general thinking that the member is the one who stood up in the Legislature and said we have funded, his region did not want more money. I think the member was wrong on that.

There were more requirements, and we now subsequently discovered that there are more requirements for the member's region. We will provide that information with respect to those regions. In the area of health care, the question of per capita costs per person is not the only criteria that one should use in terms of determination of the allocation of resources. For if that was the case, we would not be able to provide for certain needs and requirements in this province for high-risk areas, or for areas where there are higher needs and other requirements.

I have indicated to the member I will provide that information but I am just actually trying to assist the member m interpreting some of the information. Mr. Jim Penner: I know it is not the only criterion. I respect that. But I do not respect the misuse of my quote when I was trying to explain that throwing money at issues is not the way to run.

They inherited a $600-million increase, I think, from the federal government in funding when they took office, that we were trying to manage without, and they inherited a province that had a balanced budget and that was in reasonably good shape considering what we had to work with out of the 19 90s with the recession. As far as I am concerned, the statement I was trying to make, and if I did not come across I will explain it once more, is that throwing money at things is no substitute for good management. In the southeast, we do not want just throwing money at things. That is not the issue.

We are short of money, and everybody knows, that but throwing money at things is not a substitute for good planning and good management. I know there will always be problems but I cannot believe that we do not know what an average cost per person is. Mr. Chairman, can the minister confirm that our Health budget is approximately $2.6 billion? Mr. Chomiak: Let me repeat it again to the member. I will provide that information, Mr. Chairperson. I was under the impression that we were dealing with capital items at this point. The information will be provided.

2262 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA May 24, 200 1 * (16: 40) Mr. Jim Penner: Well, it just seems to me that part of the budgeting process w

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-2-35b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 2nd hansardpdf 35b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ebef1482707d6d2200ef46c001036f490ed45602

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).