* (1700)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' resolutions.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that
"WHEREAS when legislation was introduced in this Legislature establishing Regional Health Authorities across Manitoba, the Minister of Health said it was not 'anybody's intention to get away from any type of accountability for the health care system'; and
"WHEREAS since that time, the Government has refused to take responsibility for health care decision making, saying that is it the responsibility of the Boards; and
"WHEREAS the Board Chairs and Chief Executive Officers are not elected or accountable to either the people in the region, or to this Legislature; and
"WHEREAS the question of accountability has been further complicated because the Provincial Government has insisted that the Boards shouldn't be elected because they aren't financially accountable, but conversely says that when financial management issues arise, such as the food services privatization contract signed by the Urban Shared Services Corporation, it is the Regional Boards' responsibility; and
"WHEREAS given the size of the Health Budget, there must be some level of accountability for expenditures and planning; and
"WHEREAS since the Minister of Health has tried to abdicate his responsibility for health planning, financial decision making and expenditures, he must agree that the groups he has given that responsibility to should be accountable for their decisions and actions.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba consider the creation of a special Standing Committee on Health Care Reform and Governance; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly direct the Minister of Health to be available to that Committee to be accountable for all Provincial Government decisions affecting health programming and reform; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly direct the Board Chairs and Chief Executive Officers of all the Regional Health Authorities, including the Winnipeg "Superboards" and the Urban Shared Services Corporation to make themselves available to this Committee to be accountable for their decisions with regard to spending and health care services and priorities."
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Regrettably, I must advise the House that Resolution No. 15 as presented by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) is not in order. The Speaker, pursuant to Citation 566.(3) of Beauchesne has the duty "to call the attention of the mover and of the House to the irregularity of a motion; whereupon the motion is usually withdrawn or so modified as to be no longer objectionable."
The procedural objection to the resolution arises in the final two BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED clauses, specifically the clauses that "this Assembly direct the Minister of Health" and, secondly, that "this Assembly direct the Board Chairs and Chief Executive Officers of all the Regional Health Authorities."
The Manitoba practice, one which is expressed in Beauchesne's Citation 553.(1) allows for the House to declare its opinions and purposes by way of its resolutions. This does not include the notion of a private member's resolution being a vehicle to direct a minister or an authority to act in a certain manner or do a certain thing.
Manitoba resolutions have been reviewed, and it has been found that whenever the words "direct" or "directing" have been used with reference to the government or individual government departments or ministers, they have been qualified by words such as "urged the minister to consider directing."
If the honourable member for Kildonan--order, please. I am trying to give the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) some directive with relation to resolving the situation, and right now I have a lot of competition. If the honourable member for Kildonan wishes, he can move the resolution again after having made the necessary corrections and having given a new notice, or the member could seek unanimous consent of the House to submit and have debated in the near future a corrected resolution.
I must at this time rule Resolution No. 15, as it currently reads, out of order, and if no other options are followed it will be removed from the Order Paper.
Mr. Chomiak: I wonder if I might see if there is unanimous consent of the House to amend the resolution to allow it to come back with appropriate wording in the last two subsections, something along the lines of, urge the Assembly to direct or urge the Assembly to implement. I am seeking unanimous consent of the Assembly to change the word "direct" to "urge" in the last two paragraphs of the amendment.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) have leave of the House to amend his resolution as proposed?
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On a point of order, I am personally disposed to allowing the changes as you have recommended and as the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has requested. I must say that the last time this happened and this time it happened there was no assurance on my part that the ruling would go the way it has, although I suspected it having had a quick look at the resolutions myself.
Having done so, in the case of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), I personally would be disposed to grant the leave to the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in return for numerous courtesies extended to me in the past by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). But I would underline that it would be on the basis of a courtesy on this occasion and perhaps ask honourable members to review their remaining resolutions, and if there is anything wrong with them, perhaps move up front to have it changed and then I think we could carry on in an orderly way with private members' hours.
On that basis I would be prepared to grant the leave.
Madam Speaker: Leave of the House has been granted. It is Resolution No. 15. It has been moved by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), seconded by the honourable member for Wellington, Resolution 15.
WHEREAS when legislation was--
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Madam Speaker: Dispense.
I will just read for clarification for the record, with the members' indulgence, the two corrected BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED clauses.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Minister of Health to be available to that Committee to be accountable for all Provincial Government decisions affecting health programming and reform; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Board Chairs and Chief Executive Officers of all the Regional Health Authorities, including the Winnipeg "Superboards" and the Urban Shared Services Corporation to make themselves available to this Committee to be accountable for their decisions with regard to spending and health care services and priorities."
Mr. Chomiak: I would like to thank you and I would like to thank the government House leader and all members of the House for providing you with the opportunity to amend.
Very briefly, speaking to this resolution, I just want to make several very quick points. Firstly, the regional boards and entities that we have set up in this province have expenditures somewhere probably in the vicinity of close to a billion dollars. We are not doing ourselves or the citizens of Manitoba a service by not having a direct line on those expenditures, which is one of the reasons why we need accountability in this fashion.
The second point I would like to make in this regard is that while we are going through the Estimates process, and I will give credit to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik). He has brought in officials from the various agencies to address questions, but on numerous occasions we have run into the stumbling block that the minister cannot answer on behalf of the organization, and the organization will not provide the information, most notably for food services, because it is proprietary or the information is not available. That is just not acceptable, when we are charged with responsibility for these expenditures and for these activities in the Legislature. Therefore, I urge all members to consider adoption of this resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (1710)
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today and speak to the resolution. As I do, although we did hear from the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) and his generosity, I would like to point out that day after day I sit in this Legislature and I hear constantly from the other side about rules and regulations. As I sat here yesterday and saw the Speaker correct the resolution that was put forward, I would like to reiterate the government House leader's position that--I guess the old saying: the first time the joke's on us; the second time, the joke will be on you. I guess I am a little disappointed that the resolution would come forward from the opposition and then the question having been asked of government to grant leave in something that could be corrected in a matter of a few short seconds, had someone spent the time to review the resolution.
But speaking to the resolution itself, I read with interest the comments brought forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and he certainly has brought forward this issue in the House several times. I think the experience that I have had in dealing with health boards and RHAs in the past--and the question today is giving them the level of accountability such as taxing. I think just to give perhaps a rural explanation as to why I see it not working real well, and why I see the appointment of these people to these boards by the minister to the advantage of rural Manitobans, in particular, and also northern Manitobans. When the regional health authorities came into being and the appointments were being considered, one of the major considerations of government was to put forward a board that represented the entire region.
When you look at some of the areas in rural and northern Manitoba, those regions extend from the Saskatchewan boundary in the west all the way to close to the middle of the province in my particular area for the southwest health region. In talking to the CEO out there--and I guess I am going to make a statement on the numbers and I am not quite sure of it--but I believe he said it was something like 17,000 square kilometres. That is a huge area. In that area, we have large communities, we have small communities, we have several communities with hospitals, but we also have several without. I think, based on the size of communities and also for the sake of fairness, the idea of going to the appointed boards seemed to be the most logical and perhaps best thing to do.
I cite my communities as an example. In my particular region, I have four or five major communities. By major in rural Manitoba, I am talking anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 people. If these communities were to put forward a slate of people to run and contest the nominations to the RHA board, we could get a very distorted picture of health care in rural Manitoba and in northern Manitoba. If one community came forward with half the nominations on the board--and that is possible if you go to that, and also with the taxing authority that is being suggested in this resolution--then I think we are setting ourselves up probably to fail, and if not to fail, at least to create such indifference out there that no one would be happy with the final outcome of regionalization of our health care in rural and northern Manitoba. The idea that a small group or a small group of communities could control and entire region, to me it is just unthinkable. I think the idea of the broad base that we have, and I think of my particular RHA that is part of my constituency, is the fact that we have people on these boards that do not have hospitals in their communities, they do not have health care facilities, but the important part is that they have a place at the table to sit and discuss the health care needs of the people in their communities and also the people in the communities of their size that do not have the opportunities to have the facilities that some of the larger centres do.
I think we must bear that in mind all the time, that when we go to a system of health care that we need representation from all parts of the region, from all walks of life and from all interested groups. I think it is important that we continue to work that way. This resolution, I am afraid, would change that dramatically in the sense that a large community in an RHA or in a region could actually dictate the agenda of the entire RHA. I think that would be totally unjust and totally unfair to the people within the region. I think when you have a slate put forward by a community or by a smaller region of the entire region, you open yourself up for the opportunity for facilities and management to be very centralized within a small area of the region and perhaps services not being recognized or being provided throughout the entire region, as we hope this system will evolve and we will propose.
I know that the regions in rural and northern Manitoba have just completed their needs assessments, and now the RHAs are going back to the communities to give them the tabulated results of what has been presented to them. Now, the next step is to make the plans and take the necessary steps to move forward to provide the health care that is relevant to the communities that we serve. I think that is very important that we keep that in mind when we are talking about regionalization and when we are talking about health care. Do we have the health care that is asked for and required in the communities that it is serving? I think that is very important.
Quite often, in areas, in communities that I have been associated with over my lifetime and in business, we were often asked by communities to contribute to a fund to purchase a piece of equipment for the hospital. You know, I think everyone is generous when it comes to their own communities and their own hospitals, and anything we can do to offer to help enhance the ability of the hospital to provide the services, we participate in. The only question we did not ask, and I, unfortunately, looking back probably regret that I did not ask, was: is what we are purchasing for this particular hospital or for this particular region relevant to the service that is required?
In the business that I come from, in the past, Madam Speaker, we would not go out and buy a piece of equipment that did not meet the needs of the consumer that was using it. I think unfortunately some of our hospitals did, and as doctors changed and moved on and we brought in new doctors, we did not always bring in the same qualities and qualifications that were required to operate the machinery that was in these facilities, therefore we ended up with a lot of idle machinery at a high cost. It was not done with intention; it happened or evolved over time. Perhaps at the start the need was there, and it has changed. I think we have to be able to identify those changes and respond accordingly. I think that is the benefit of having an RHA or a regional health authority that represents the entire communities that it serves and not the elected RHA, which would have the ability to put forward a slate and perhaps solidify one power base in an RHA and dictate to the health needs of the community instead of being responsive to the health demands.
I think that as I had an opportunity last year to travel around the province and visit with all the RHAs and discuss some of their concerns and their needs--and when the member brings forward the resolution, it is something that is out there being discussed by people, and I think to have the discussion on this type of an issue is very positive. I think it is an opportunity for all members to put their opinions on the record, but I think it also gives government an opportunity to present their position as to why they do things or why they are doing certain things in health care, particularly regionalization and the proposed benefits that come with it.
The resolution that we are debating here today is asking for the government to empower and to provide for the elected boards and also provide them with the ability to have taxing authority. I think that that is something that, if we get into, based on the information and the questions that I would have about representation, be it local or be it regional, it may create a major problem for fundraising within regions. If one centralized location is dominating the regional health authority picture, is it going to be possible to raise some of the necessary funds that are required to provide facilities or programs in the communities that are out there without representation, and will there be a will to do that?
* (1720)
I think every community--when we talk about regionalization, I think of something that is going on in my communities right now. In the constituency in Killarney and the R.M. of Turtle Mountain, we are talking about amalgamation, and it is much on the same principle. Everything has to be decided as to where our assets are going to go, where do the taxes come from, who pays what share, and all that has to be derived when you go to the model that is being proposed by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). I think that it would probably create a lot of anxiety and in a time and the stage in the province of Manitoba when we are working very hard to get communities to co-operate, to participate in programs together, to see themselves not just as their own community, but a larger community, a larger area, a larger region, because I believe that there is strength in negotiation, and there is strength in the numbers when you can present a solid front of an area that is willing and prepared to move forward, that this may actually become divisive. It may isolate communities one against the other, it may pit community against each other.
Again, I think of a situation where we are building a new hospital in southeast Manitoba--southwest, as far as I am concerned, but south central. The idea is the two communities have got together and decided to share a facility. They are going to share a wonderful facility, but if you had an RHA where one community had more power or more vote or more balance than the other, it may not have happened. That would be a shame because instead of having the new facility that they are looking forward to and the wonderful health care that it is going to provide to that area, not just one community or another, but to the entire area, then I think it speaks well that the direction we have gone with appointing the members of the RHA. We have a balance that has been supported by both communities in this particular case.
It has been supported by the surrounding communities because they have a place at the table. Some of those smaller communities may not give that support if they do not have that ability to sit down and discuss the issues and be at the table with the people that are making the decisions for the health care needs in their particular region. The accountability is always a question. If you ask people, if you elect people to boards or to commissions, you have to, in my mind, give them the ability to raise funds for the things that they want to do.
I think that in the regionalization of health care that is something--and, Madam Speaker, the one thing I have learned about this business is I would never say it is not ever going to happen, but I think in the initial stages, in particular the startup stages, that we need to take this approach. We need to have broad representation across the region, not based on the size of the community that you come from or how much money one community can raise against the other to receive the benefits of the region, but a well-thought-out, rounded process where people can participate, where people are kept aware of what is going on in their communities, and where the needs of their communities are being met by the entire region. I think time will tell. We have certainly seen the experience in other provinces where they went to the elected position.
Madam Speaker, with that, I will close and just offer that I cannot support the resolution put forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I am terribly upset, but not at all surprised, that the previous speaker is not supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). I, to no one's shock or dismay, am supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), as graciously allowed to be amended by unanimous consent of the Legislature.
The issue here is simple. It is an issue of accountability. This resolution says that the way the regional health authorities have been established does not provide for accountability. What we are saying is the government is saying no to accountability through its processes, and we are saying yes through the processes that we have put in place in this resolution.
We are identifying the current situation. We have talked in this House about our view of elected versus appointed boards. Our view, that is not the discussion under debate here this afternoon. The reality is the reality that is laid out in the WHEREASes in the resolution. We have appointed regional health authorities. They have virtually no accountability as far as we can see. What this resolution says is, given the fact that the government has said, no, you will not be elected, the very least you can do is to agree with our resolution and have the Legislative Assembly consider the creation of a special standing committee on health care reform and governance and, as a secondary recommendation, that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the board chairs and chief executive officers of all the regional health authorities be required to be responsible to the standing committee of the Legislature.
The government talks about accountability, and if I have time, I can quote the Minister of Health's (Mr. Praznik) own words in Estimates two days ago where he talks about accountability. Accountability is one of those words that everybody in public life talks about today. Nobody is not in favour of accountability. You would be carried out feet first if you, as a public servant, and rightly so, said accountability does not have a place in public life. We all know it is the backbone and the basis of a democracy.
Saying it is one thing; doing it is another. I think the reason we are requesting and bringing forth this resolution on a standing committee to force a degree of accountability on these unelected, unaccountable boards and the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is that this government, by its actions this very day, has shown their contempt for the concept of accountability when it comes to health care.
For weeks, Madam Speaker, the government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) have known that the Free Press and the CBC were putting together a public forum on health care. For weeks they have known this.
Now, I happen to know from previous experience that ministers' and the Premier's calendars are set quite far in advance. I am sure that the Premier's next trip to Davos, Switzerland, is already in his planning book. I am sure the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship's (Mrs. Vodrey) next trip to wherever it is she is going to go, along with an unnamed number of her cabinet colleagues and staff, is probably already in the planning works.
* (1730)
Those kinds of long-term, long-range planning situations have to take place, but we are talking about a local event that is taking place within a kilometre or two of this very building, and the Premier of the Province of Manitoba and the Minister of Health of the Province of Manitoba are otherwise occupied tonight to deal with this incredibly critical issue, an issue that they, themselves, say is of the upmost importance.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) talks all the time about how over a third of the money expenditures in the departments of the government goes to the Health department, the single largest expenditure in any provincial budget. They admit that. They crow about it, but where are they, any one of the 31 members of the government? I deliberately include the 31st member of the government body because that 31st member of the government has attended cabinet committee meetings. So if that 31st member of the government benches can attend cabinet committee meetings, that member of the Legislature should be counted as part of the government benches when it comes to attending a public meeting after the Legislature has risen for the evening. Thirty-one members of the government benches and not one of them can attend a public forum on health care, the single most important issue in this government, in this province for the people.
I think that the public of Manitoba will know exactly why they are not coming. They are ducking. They know the kinds of problems that the health care system has in this province, and not one of them has the courage or the common decency as a responsible member--not only of representing their own constituents, but in the case of 31 of them representing the government of the province of Manitoba, not one of them has the intestinal fortitude to show up tonight. That is despicable. That gets right back to the whole issue of accountability, which is the topic of discussion here with this private member's resolution. It is just too much; it is really too much.
I would like to quote briefly from the throne speech debate, I believe the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), who on November 28 last year in his Speech from the Throne speech, stated, and I quote here: "I firmly believe that Manitobans want access to a quality public health care system, one that is delivered with an emphasis on public service, one that is accountable to them as both consumers and taxpayers."
Now, this again is another sentence that nobody would disagree with. Where is the member for Pembina tonight when he talks about--in the Legislature where it is easy to make these statements--a public health system that should be accountable, and then he is not willing to attend a meeting tonight and most probably would not be willing to support this resolution which addresses the whole issue of accountability.
The member goes on last November in his speech to say, quote, we have allowed local community leaders to have a greater say in setting their health care priorities through the introduction of regional health authorities. Well, local community leaders, is that not democracy in action? Is that not accountability, local community leaders taking a role? Well, yes, on the surface, but if you dig just a bit deeper, you will find that the definition of local community leaders when it comes to the regional health authorities is whoever the government wants to appoint. Usually, the vast majority of those local community leaders in the RHAs throughout the province of Manitoba are men.
You go into any local community, and you look at who the backbone of the local church is, you look at who the backbone of the local community centre, the backbone of the residents' advisory groups, the backbone of the parent councils, the backbone of the education system as staff, the backbone of the health care system as staff, the backbone of the daycare system as staff and the backbone of the boards, the original, no-longer-in-existence elected boards of those local community hospitals--at least half of the backbone of all of those local community groups that make up the essence of our communities in Manitoba are women, but they are not, clearly--
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), on a point of order.
Mr. Tweed: Just to clear for the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) that the people that were appointed to these boards were nominated from within their community. Their names were brought forward by the communities that they represent, be they men, women or children. It was not the decision of the government to select these people; they were nominations that were brought forward.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Ms. Barrett: I think it is clear--well, I know it is clear that the principle of accountability was not followed in the decision to appoint, rather than elect, regional health authority members, no matter what the member for Pembina says in his speech. You cannot have, if you are going to say you are going to have accountability and you do not elect the regional health authorities and you do not have regional health authority boards that represent the local, active members, No. 1, or even represent in any basic way the composition of the adult population of the region, then you have to have another way to make them accountable.
This resolution says, given the fact that the New Democratic Party is not in government yet, given the fact that the legislation has been put in place, the regional health authority boards are all in place now. Given that reality, what can we do to make a small step towards accountability, real accountability? This resolution addresses that.
The biggest step, as my colleague from Osborne has just pointed out, the best step for providing accountability in the province of Manitoba with health care and everything else would be to call an election, and I throw out the challenge to members opposite. Perhaps, if you are too busy to go to the health care forum this evening, you might want to talk to your colleagues and, most particularly, the First Minister and say, well, here is not a bad idea, we have been in power for--we will even let you wait until the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has been in power longer than Duff Roblin. We will give you that, which is another month or two. But, once he has accomplished that goal that we know he has set for himself, then why does he not say, over 10 years, the longest, I believe, serving Conservative Premier in the history of the Province of Manitoba, probably longer serving than the Premier of New Brunswick, I have set my goal, I have reached my goal, I have achieved the vision of Manitoba that I have had for 20 years, so let us call an election. I think that would show a great deal of accountability on the part of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the Province of Manitoba and a great deal of courage, far more than he or any other member of the government is prepared to show.
Nobody is prepared over in the government benches to stand up for their health care system. This resolution says: we know that. We want to ensure a degree of accountability on the part of the people that were appointed by this government so that we as legislators can do the job we were elected to do which is represent the best interests of not only our own constituents but the entire province of Manitoba, and we cannot do that when regional health authorities are accountable to no one but the politicians who appointed them.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (1740)
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this resolution only because of the fact that I feel that there are so many shortcomings with this resolution that I think that there has to be some accountability and some consideration given to this more serious than what maybe the opposition members are getting.
You know, the opposition members hold themselves out as saviours of health care, and I observe here what has taken place in this Chamber this afternoon with the introduction of this resolution. The honourable member who introduced this, and I have a certain amount of respect for the individual, and I respect his right to make these resolutions and present these resolutions although they were drafted incorrectly and not acceptable for this discussion or for this Chamber. We had to agree to do these changes in order to make the resolution acceptable. The honourable barely introduced the resolution but had very little to say about it.
Ms. Barrett: The reason the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has had very few words to say on this resolution is that he is now preparing to be present at the accountability session on the public health care system in the province of Manitoba, the only member of this Legislature and certainly representing us officially. So let the member watch what he says, thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Mr. McAlpine: Madam Speaker, I thank you, and this really supports my suggestion here that the honourable member--yes, he had some other things to do. He had another agenda. That is my case and point here. The honourable members across the way, when it comes to health care, they have an agenda. They do not care about the people who they are serving in terms of this resolution. It is all show, and really as far as when it comes down to serving the people who have needs as far as health care is concerned, the honourable members over there, I do not really think they care about this issue because the honourable member--and I thank the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to stand up and offer an explanation for why her colleague chose not to put his comments.
He took the time to introduce the resolution, he took the time to alter the resolution so that it was acceptable, so that we could discuss it in here, and then the honourable member chose not to
put any comments on. The honourable member said that he had to leave, which is unacceptable as far as--I mean, in terms of his absence from here.
Madam Speaker, I think that the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has basically said that he has got better things to do than to deal with this resolution. He has to go and prepare for a forum tonight that was organized by probably the opposition members and other people of those thoughts and considerations.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I would urge the member to address the issues that are to be debated today, which is the resolution, the private member's resolution, that was brought forward discussing the accountability of the Regional Health Authorities and not impugn personal motive to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who is attending a forum that was set up by the CBC and the Free Press--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Barrett: --which none of you have the guts to go to--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Turtle Mountain on the same point of order.
Mr. Tweed: Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the point of order by the member for Wellington and when I listened to her speech, I am not too sure she was on track on most of her comments about the resolution that was brought forward when she was talking about the number of members in the government party, so I would suggest that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), I think she had more than one point of order, if I understand correctly what she said.
Firstly, I believe she addressed imputing motives, right? Right. I do not believe the honourable member had a point of order with imputing motives. However, on the other point of order raised by the honourable member for Wellington relative to relevance, indeed she did have a point of order, but the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), in speaking to the point of order, did indicate that the Speaker had allowed considerable latitude to members on both sides of the house when debating this motion, but perhaps it would be most in order if all members hereinafter would be more relevant.
Mr. McAlpine: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that direction. I can understand why the honourable members over there are a little bit sensitive about this, because I come back to this resolution with regard to the whole issue with regard to health care. They profess to be the saviours of health care, but where are they? When they have an opportunity to debate this issue on a private member's bill, a resolution that is introduced by an honourable member across the way, where are they? Where are they? They are not here to debate the issue, so I would like to address the issues with regard to the resolution, particularly with respect to the WHEREASes.
There are three WHEREAS sections in here. They basically refer to the matter of accountability. In the matter of accountability, I think their main concern is--if I can make my own interpretation of this--and certainly the actions of the honourable members across the way certainly reflect that my suspects are correct. The only reason they want accountability is because, if they cannot chastise or beat up the Health minister and go on this issue, what are they going to go on? What is their platform going to be? They will not have a platform. They will be a party with no issues. So where will they stand? What is their future? Their future is dim and dying as it is, and basically this resolution supports that.
The honourable members, in their way of trying to give the impression to the people out there in Manitoba that they are going to be the advisers or the people who have all the answers when it comes to health care, certainly have demonstrated that they do not today. The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) suggests that they are out preparing for this forum tonight. This is not the first time we have had forums as far as health care or any other issues that are of concern.
I have held forums in Sturgeon Creek on health care, and the minister has come out and spoken to the constituents of Sturgeon Creek with regard to that. I happen to know that the minister has gone to the constituency of Pembina and other constituencies throughout Manitoba and spoken to real Manitobans.
We are not going out to try to convince people who have an agenda, as the opposition members have and which is going to be supported by the honourable member for--[interjection]--no, I am trying to refer to the health critic--[interjection]--Kildonan, thank you, thank you honourable members, but I think that from the aspect of community forums and accountability, I think this government has definitely done an honourable job in terms of dealing with these health care issues, the health care issues that we have had to address.
* (1750)
We, as a government, have to recognize--and obviously the opposition members do not subscribe to it because they are members that do not accept change very readily. I think that what they have demonstrated with regard to this, to me, is a matter that bears serious consideration of the people of Manitoba. When the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) talks about an election, I think the people of Manitoba have to know how serious they are about the health care issues in this province, and that has been demonstrated here today.
The honourable member for Wellington also referenced the appointment of members, and the resolution refers to that. I think that as far as the health care issues are concerned, I think it is important that the community does take some ownership and some responsibility instead of the Health minister. We have to make some changes in how we deal with the health care issues in this province. I think that that is going to have to be done and it is being done throughout this entire country.
From that point, I think that the appointments that have come to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), or the recommendations that have come from the communities by way of the regional health boards and the boards within the city of Winnipeg, definitely are people that are respected in the community with regard to their health care knowledge and experience, and have a business experience to be able to direct the people in the health care service.
The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) referenced the fact that there were very few women appointed. I happen to know one, Ms. Jan Currie, former executive director of the Deer Lodge Centre in the constituency of Sturgeon Creek, a very, very knowledgeable individual, a person who is going to make a tremendous contribution.
The honourable members across the way, in terms of--Madam Speaker, it is too bad. I have lots to say on this issue, and you tell me already that my time is running out. But we have as a government passed The Regional Health Authorities Act in 1996 and the amendments in 1997 and created these boards to deliver health services throughout the province, and the honourable member's resolution also makes mention of the Urban Shared Services Corporation created by the nine urban hospitals, not the Manitoba government.
It is accountable to the shareholders, the nine urban hospitals that have a reporting relationship with the Manitoba government. None of the nine Winnipeg hospitals openly and democratically elected their board of directors, which they want to happen. Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that maybe in time this will happen, but I think that we have to have people appointed to these boards who have experience, and I think it is really crucial at the initial stage that there are people there who are going to be able to do that, and, over time, maybe that will happen.
But, in closing, Madam Speaker, I must say that I cannot support this resolution. I support the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), and in spite of what the opposition members will suggest or want to give the impression, I do not think they care as much as what they would like to think that they want to make the public in Manitoba think that they care about health care.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, due to possibly the lack of time that I may not be able to complete all the comments, I would like to put on the record, I would like to indicate at the outset that I cannot support this resolution. I must support some of the thoughts that the honourable member had from Turtle Mountain, and as he so eloquently stated before, that the members opposite indicated that there were few women on the RHA boards, I just want to indicate that there are four on the south central board. In fact, the chair is a lady and the vice-chair is a lady, so certainly they are doing an excellent job, and we appreciate the contributions that they are making.
The other point that the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) made was regarding the accountability and the way the boards were put in place. Well, I must indicate that at least in our area, and I assume it was that way throughout the province, that in our area the community, and that means all people within the community, had the opportunity to nominate those who they would like to see represent them on the RHA. Now, to me, I think that is accountability. I am assuming that is the way it works in a democratic system, so that is exactly what took place within our RHA, and I know that it did the same in the other RHAs in the rest of the province. So if we look at that, the opportunity to nominate, and then from those nominees these were the people who were then appointed to the boards. So I think the democratic system is there. It is a very obvious approach.
Maybe, Madam Speaker, I could just with that compare the way it used to be with the boards, the hospital boards, the way they were previous to this, and that is that they were appointed by their owners, often the municipalities, or it would have been done in public meetings, but the process was one of an appointment through the other format.
So I believe that we have used a process that is democratic, that has given opportunity to all members. I know that in the south central region there were those who volunteered to let their names stand for the RHA, so, obviously, I really believe that with that in mind, accountability is taking place and it can continue to take place.
These boards, especially the rural RHA, they have been in existence now for approximately a year. I know that the WHA has been put in place and is only in place now for about a month, I believe. It certainly, as you step into a position which is as important as this, and which has the responsibilities that these boards have, it is not something that can take place overnight. Are they struggling? I would suggest, yes, they are. They are trying to find their niche, the responsibilities that they need to look after. In many cases they are on stream. They have been moving very well. I think others maybe are struggling a little more, but the process is working.
I would urge the members opposite to allow that process to evolve, to take place. Certainly we need to give them the support that they need as they look after the health needs of the local communities. As far as accountability is concerned, certainly in our area the members are accountable to the community, are accountable to the people that they come in contact with, and this is done on an ongoing basis. I know that I was at a function last night, and community people were out there and were communicating and talking to their board members about the concerns that they had. So, Madam Speaker, I believe that we are certainly being accountable and we want to do that which is best for our communities in response to the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Pembina will have 10 minutes remaining. The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.