MATTER OF GRIEVANCE

Home Care Services

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, under the new rules, every member is given the opportunity to grieve. I would like to take this as the opportunity to express my grievance.

Madam Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes to talk about the important issue of home care services and some of the problems that we see in terms of the government's inaction or inability to sincerely address this particular issue.

The Liberal Party has been fairly aggressive in terms of trying to do what we can to alleviate the concerns of the clients, home care workers and other individuals that have expressed an interest in a very important issue. We have done that through different ways. We introduced, on a couple of occasions, a resolution calling for a matter of urgent public importance, most recently on April 15, where unfortunately the Chamber did not get to debate it.

We also sent a letter to the Leader of the official opposition requesting that the New Democrats designate an Opposition Day to deal with the home care services. Unfortunately, because we do not have the required number of members to be able to designate a day, we, as a group, as a Liberal caucus, are unable to do that, and we appeal to the New Democratic Party to designate a day for this Chamber to talk abut the issue of home care services.

Many might argue that, look, we are in health care Estimates and why is it that we should be having a MUPI or an Opposition Day, Madam Speaker. Ultimately, I believe that this is an issue of importance, enough to get as much attention as possible from this Chamber in many different ways. Whether it is an Opposition Day, whether it is a MUPI, these are all different ways in which individual MLAs can participate in a wide-open discussion on something that is having such a significant impact on the health care needs of so many clients throughout the province. That is the reason why I chose to stand up today on my grievance–and we are only given one in any given session–to express the concern that we have as a political party.

The overriding concern that we have is that this government is privatizing home care services and that privatization is going to have a focus on for-profit. Ultimately, we believe that is not in the long-term best interests of Manitobans. This government did not consult with the clients, did not consult with the home care workers or other Manitobans who are interested and wanted to be able to participate in any sort of change. I think that is where this government can really be blamed because they are doing this in such a dictatorial fashion. It is most inappropriate.

We would like the government to put that one-year moratorium. We have been lobbying the government virtually on a day-in, day-out basis in many different ways, whether it is through petitions, Question Period, the introductions of MUPIs. There are different ways which we have as legislators–there are home care clients, there are home care workers, there are other individuals with interest in this particular issue who are lobbying the government. The government has not been listening and has demonstrated that with its ill thoughts of wanting to really try to overcome this issue.

Today, I had received a letter–and I believe that all members were sent a copy of this–and it is one of the primary reasons why I took the opportunity to stand up today on the grievance. It is because I believe that the single most important thing that this government has done wrong with respect to home care services is that it has not consulted, it has not contacted people. This particular lady is Margaret Gaunt, and I believe–and I will table it after I have read it and ask for the Page to get me a copy of it after it has been tabled–but I do believe MLAs were provided–I am not going to read the entire poem; it is rather lengthy. What I have done is just highlighted areas that I want to concentrate on.

The poem reads: I am told I am a survivor, and I have done my best to be just that. I am told I am strong, and I have done my best to be that. I have struggled with cancer, all the while caring for a rapidly deteriorating husband with MS. For years I have coped with incontinence, confusion, hallucinations, urinary tract infections, decreasing ability, cataracts, deafness. I have washed him and bathed him. I have cleaned him and I have nursed him. I have lost a husband and a friend and gained another child. I cannot go shopping or out for coffee or supper. I cannot visit a neighbour unless there is someone there to look after him. I have fed him, cooked for him, cut up food for him, invented a long straw, made sure he does not dehydrate, looked after his medications, his bedsores, his spasms, his falling down, his depressions. I have cut his hair, his toenails, his fingernails. I have been there for him hour after hour, week after week, month after month, year after year, night after night after night.

The poem continues on, Madam Speaker, and then highlights the next section, which I think the government really has to reflect on.

How do they know what we want or need? They never ask us. No one has ever asked us whether we are happy with home care. We have never been consulted, phoned, asked to attend a meeting, given a survey to complete. They who are healthy presume to know what is needed to keep him at home and cared for.

Madam Speaker, these are the types of individuals that I believe had a lot to contribute and still could today, if the government would allow for it, to the decisions on what home care services should look like in the years ahead of us. This is what the government is doing. The government is denying individuals such as Margaret and other clients, home care workers, individuals who are interested in home care services who have been delivering them in many different ways in one sense, this government is denying them the opportunity to be able to participate in the decision-making process.

That is why as a party we feel very strongly that the government does need to put the one-year moratorium on the privatization of health care. This will in fact allow for individuals like Margaret to be able to express her thoughts on a very important issue. We in opposition have a responsibility to do whatever it is that we can to try to ask, as direct as possible, this government and particularly the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to reflect on the direction it is taking home care services, to be open-minded, to allow for ideas to flow through the Ministry of Health and in particular the Minister of Health, so that we know that a good decision is going to be made that in the long term is going to be in the best interests of the client.

We as a party have indicated to the Minister of Health on several occasions, both in Question Period and in Health Estimates, that there are other ideas that are out there. We have even made suggestions. I have talked about preferential treatment, and I know the government does not feel preferential treatment for nonprofit sector is worthy of giving. But the criteria, as the Minister of Health engaged in the discussion yesterday and previously on, do allow for different types of special treatment. If you do not, for example, have some sort of a wage scale incorporated into criteria, are you giving special treatment then to the private sector?

* (1440)

Many, including myself, would argue that ultimately you could be giving preferential treatment by not including things into the criteria. You could be giving special treatment by excluding or including into the criteria or standards that are being set out. The whole issue of how home care services, the core services, what those core services are going to be, the whole issue of being able to have a debate within this Chamber before the tendering process has begun we believe is absolutely essential, because you are dramatically changing a way in which we deliver what many Canadians, many Manitobans, feel is a part of our health care system. Yes, our home care service is not a part of the fundamental principles of health care, Madam Speaker, but it is very, very much so a direct correlation to the whole concept of the deinstitutionalization of health care. That is why Manitobans feel so strongly and so passionately about this particular issue.

The government is quite content blaming the workers for not providing things such as essential services, for walking on a picket line, putting the blame on the workers as opposed to taking responsibility for the actions that it has taken that has caused, in essence, this strike.

Home care workers in particular, along with clients, all Manitobans, found out about these changes through a leaked document. That leaked document, Madam Speaker, is what has led us into the strike situation, putting into jeopardy the safety and the needs of our clients. I have talked to clients, in particular one client who feels very passionate about the need to have home care services into the future, and as a result of that strong, passionate feeling about the future of home care services, is being quite supportive of the worker and in fact the strike process.

Unfortunately, whenever there is a strike, there is no winner. The clients are not winners through this process. The workers are not winners through this process. What we are looking for is leadership. That leadership has got to come from the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) or the government of the day. That leadership has got to come from the union representing the individuals. That leadership has got to come from the different vested interest groups and the interested Manitobans that have a voice that can be heard. That is the reason why within the Liberal Party we have done whatever possible in order to try to get the different parties at the table talking about the issues, being supportive where we can of the client, the home care worker and other Manitobans who have expressed an interest in this very important issue.

Again, Madam Speaker, I have taken the opportunity today to be able to raise this issue, knowing full well that I could have said in essence the very same thing in the health care Estimates which will follow virtually immediately upon my sitting down. The reason why I did that is because we have attempted through MUPIs, we have attempted through requests of the New Democrats to introduce an Opposition Day to be able to make this a bigger issue inside this Chamber. We believe that ultimately this is a priority issue that deserves a lot more attention outside of the health care Estimates. We want to see more focus and more attention being given to this issue in hopes of being able to stand up today. Once again I can go to my constituents and I could say that I have fought to the best of my ability using whatever resources were here. I hope to be able to take advantage of other things such as Opposition Days and, potentially, MUPIs if in fact the government does not respond.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for having the opportunity to comment.