ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Sciences Centre
Capital Projects
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we tabled yesterday--the impact of the government breaking its March 1995 pre-election promise--a report that shows the devastating impact on the surgical wards in both the children's and adults' facilities at the Health Sciences Centre.
Also in a critical state is the word of this government, because the first day that the election campaign had promises, on March 22, the Conservatives and Premier Filmon promised an infrastructure and Manitoba Works program, a term that we know quite well, and promised the Health Sciences Centre funding in that infrastructure program as the first election promise of the campaign, the $600 million funding would be there so that needed capital works projects would go forward.
I would like to ask the acting Premier why this government and why this Premier broke its word on the first campaign promise they made to the people of Manitoba on March 22, 1995.
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, this government has not broken their commitments with the people of Manitoba. The first piece of legislation that was passed by this government was the passing of the balanced budget legislation in Manitoba, bringing some discipline to the expenditure of public funds to make sure that we will be able to carry on with the essential services for the people of this province long into the future, unlike the NDP and their spending and their taxing of the people of Manitoba and putting us in the situation where these tough decisions have had to be made.
Mr. Doer: The Premier, the day he made the commitment to health capital funding, the day he made his first election promise, before the Jets, before Pharmacare, before home care, he said, and I quote: that this promise ensures that infrastructure funding will not be sacrificed to balance budgets. That is why we are going to make a five-year capital commitment.
I would like to ask, again the Deputy Premier, why are we going to have children in the pediatric centres placed in such jeopardy? Why are adults going to be placed in such jeopardy? Why did this government make a promise on March 22, say it would not be subject to balanced budgets and break its promise after the election? When were they telling the people the truth?
During the election campaign when they promised the capital for the Health Sciences Centre or now when they have broken their promise to the Health Sciences Centre?
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would take a little bit of time and do a little bit of reading and a little bit of research rather than to try to get a quick political clip out of Question Period, a commitment was made of $1.5 billion over five years. If he looks at the budget, there is a $300-million commitment made. This government is putting in place a strategy and a plan for the long-term future of this province, unlike the New Democratic Party, that took $27 million and spread it in the sands of Saudi Arabia, which did absolutely nothing for anyone in this province.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, many members of the media tabulated the promises made by political parties and included this first election promise, this first promise that was outside balanced budget, according to Premier Filmon, so that we could have a five-year capital investment in our health care facilities, including the William Avenue facility. This was the first promise made by the Conservative government. We now see the impact on children, on adults, on waiting lists, on children's pediatric services. We now see the impact of this broken promise, a situation where the Health Sciences Centre accreditation is at risk, where adults and children are at risk for surgery in the operating rooms, where waiting lists will not allow for early intervention for children's services, and on and on.
* (1345)
Will the government do the correct thing and follow through today on their election promises so we will not have the devastating impact on patient care at the Health Sciences Centre and other facilities where they have had broken promises in terms of capital commitments the first day of the election campaign, Madam Speaker?
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, again, if the member would--can I refer him to the 1996 Manitoba budget? Go to page 18. It is clearly expressed there as to what our capital expenditures are: over $300 million.
Madam Speaker, he is not referring to the numbers of increases in hip replacements and joint replacements in this province, first-time-ever lung transplants in Manitoba that came out of the health care system, increase in heart work, all of those critical operations, all on the increase, and that is on behalf of the people of Manitoba. That is our priority: health care spending, education and family services. That is what we are doing, and I would ask the member--in fact, I am prepared to get the information for him to clearly point out the additional work that is being done in the health care facilities in this province all across the board to help better the lives of people in this province.
Health Sciences Centre
Kidney Dialysis Unit
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, it has been known for some time that the kidney dialysis unit at the Health Sciences Centre was going to reach capacity this year, and now we have a document from the Health Sciences Centre saying that indeed it has reached its capacity.
Given the March 1995 election promises of the Filmon government, can the Minister of Health tell us why, in spite of promising capital spending and improvements in places like kidney dialysis, this government has done nothing to take these recommendations seriously and make improvements to the kidney dialysis unit and many other areas of the Health Sciences hospital since this is a vital service for hundreds of Manitobans?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if the honourable member takes the time to examine the expenditure pattern of this government on all of the various services referred to in part by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), but also including dialysis services across our province, he will see that there are, have been, and continue to be significant increases in expenditures for those things. That reflects the requirement in the system each year. Because dialysis is a life-preserving service, more and more people need that service. It continues to put pressure on the system and we continue to respond to that pressure.
Mr. Martindale: Given the Conservative government's election promises, can the Minister of Health tell us and tell Manitobans, especially people getting kidney dialysis, which is a matter of life and death to them, why he has not implemented the recommendations, which I presume he has had for some time from the Health Sciences Centre, that would save the government money by making improvements at the dialysis unit? Why will he not act on recommendations that they say will save money?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member, I hope, has been following developments in the health system, and he will know that, as an expenditure of total budget, the Health department receives more than any other province in this country, 33.8 percent of spending, up from the 31 percent or so in the bad old NDP days. There have been significant improvements. Those improvements have not just been in the city of Winnipeg where we do see increased services for hips, knees, hearts, MRI, and all of those things, but in those areas of Manitoba that have been neglected so badly by the NDP government in the past. We have paid attention to the mental health needs of Manitobans wherever they live and the other needs of Manitobans in places where they need to access those services.
I appreciate the honourable member's question, but he needs a significant updating on what has been happening in this province.
* (1350)
Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Health, who is part of a government that made election promises to spend money on capital improvements to hospitals, assure Manitobans that they are going to keep these promises, particularly for kidney dialysis patients, or are there any promises at all in the area of health that this government is going to keep? What promises, if any, will this government keep in the area of health care?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member does not subscribe to the principle that people ought to live within their means. That is why--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: --I say from time to time that if we followed all of the advice that we get from honourable members opposite, we would have destroyed the health system some years back. That is not something we propose to do. The honourable members one day ask about the Urban Planning Partnership for an integrated hospital system in the city of Winnipeg and--[interjection] They do not want to hear my answers anyway.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.”
Our member asked a question as to which, if any, of the health care promises that this government made in the last election will it keep. The minister is not only not answering that, he is wasting Question Period time. I would like to ask you to ask him to finally answer a question or not waste any further Question Period time.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable minister, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Thompson is embarrassed by the record of the government that he supported, and that is why he has such difficulty with the answers that I give sometimes in this House. Might I add, he should be embarrassed by the performance of the government that he supported, Madam Speaker.
With respect to capital improvements in our health system--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I will again raise the point of order on Citation 417. I fail to see what, if any, of these comments that the minister is making have to do with anything to do with any of the questions that are asked or anything to do with Question Period generally. The only thing I am embarrassed for is this Minister of Health and the incompetence of this government on health care.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, I will agree with the honourable member for Thompson that indeed he does have a point of order this time. The honourable Minister of Health strayed way over the line in completing his response.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, before there was a home care strike and before we had leaked the Treasury Board document to let Manitobans know what government was doing in terms of privatization and, in fact, before a provincial election when the government promised one thing and did another, they had an advisory committee that recommended, let me quote: contracting out all service deliveries not advisable due to difficulty ensuring quality and co-ordinating service.
* (1355)
Madam Speaker, why has this government insisted on the privatization when in fact their own committees recommended so strongly against it?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The Continuing Care advisory committee did make its opinion known. It was not altogether clear that the whole committee felt that way, but it was felt that all service delivery ought not to be contracted out until other things are done. I agree with that. That is why we are talking about a proposal to bring in competition with respect to 25 percent of the services in the city of Winnipeg only; 75 percent remain under the system that the member supports which is, let us go back to the way things used to be.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, according to the minister's own committee, their own graph, the present system is more cost-effective and more efficient than any of the other models. Can the minister explain why he is not looking at his own graph, his own analysis which shows that the present system is more cost-effective and more efficient and in fact privatization is more expensive and less flexible? Why is he not listening to the recommendations of not just his advisory committee but the committee that examined and studied home care and made recommendations prior to the election campaign?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, yesterday the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) asked about the home care appeal panel and its work and a number of its cases and the nature of them. In addition to issues related to cleaning and laundry, which have come before that particular appeal panel, there have been complaints in the past couple of years about unreliable service, inconsistent worker attendance and high worker absences, dissatisfaction with the worker or the case co-ordinator, inconsistent workers, too many workers involved in the same home or constantly changing workers, unreliable service, inconsistent worker attendance and high worker absences, no service during worker vacations and statutory holidays, improper scheduling and no service during worker vacations and statutory holidays, et cetera.
Now, Madam Speaker, I dare say that in any system of home care service delivery, there are going to be complaints, but the honourable member wants us to go back to what we used to have and that is a quote, I think, from his own policy statement. The appeal panel tells us that we do need to make improvements.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain why they are insisting on privatization when the minister's own graph of comparisons of all of the costs of all of the companies involved in home care compared to the government are all more expensive than the present government home care workers? Can he explain why they are doing that when his own graph tabled in this Legislature shows that the costs of private companies, on all cases, are higher than the government?
Mr. McCrae: I do not know how many times Vera Chernecki has told me, Madam Speaker, that our home care service is not responsive enough. You will find that in numerous MNU documents and reports. While the honourable member is reading reports, which he loves to do, unlike the honourable member for Inkster who has all these reports and does not read them, the honourable member for Kildonan will not even read MNU reports.
Point of Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I sit very patiently listening to the Minister of Health go on a diatribe about concern about health care when we know he does not have the concern. He is clearly imputing motives on my behalf in terms of reading or not reading reports. I would ask that the Minister of Health contain his political cheap shots to the New Democrats when he is being asked a question from the New Democrats, and if he wants to have cheap shots at me, at least allow me the opportunity to be able to respond to the cheap shot and address it so accordingly.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: I know what I said. I did not mean for it to sound so much like a cheap shot. I really did not. The honourable member for Inkster did tell me about a report, that he had not perused the whole thing, and it was on that basis I said that. I should not have said that, and I am sorry.
* (1400)
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Health for that retraction.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Just on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On the same point of order?
Mr. Ashton: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister, once again, is not following our rules, which are very clear in Citation 417. The previous comments of the minister, once again, show contempt for this House and I would like to ask that you bring him to order. He should not be wasting the time of this Legislature as he has been continuously, including with his last answer. He should be answering our questions.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order by the honourable member for Thompson, I will take it under advisement to review the transcript and the remarks of the honourable Minister of Health and report back if necessary.
Manitoba Telephone System
Cable Assets
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, last Thursday in this House we tabled a report from the Manitoba Telephone System showing the true value of the cable network, which they were forced to sell, exceeded $62.9 million on a very conservative estimate. It was a very strategic asset that the company had which they were forced by this government to sell.
The Minister responsible for MTS told the House that he had a study which put the valuation at a ridiculously low $7 million, but his usually sharp memory failed him. He could not remember who had done it or when it was done.
Has the minister had a chance to refresh his memory? Will he table that study today and tell us who did it?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the study was done by Deloitte and Touche, and they determined the value at $7.5 million as I reported to the member last week.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, outside the House the member responsible for the Telephone System stated that management had supported the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. Will the minister reconfirm to this House that the management of MTS recommended the sale of the cable system to the cable interests for which it was sold for the ridiculous sum of $11 million?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member brought some piece of paper or several pages of paper to the House saying that this was an official report. It came from the mid-management level of MTS. I am informed by the senior executive it never reached the executive committee of MTS; it never reached the board of MTS and the board--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, in the process of operating the Manitoba Telephone System, the senior executive of the board made the decision that the sale for $11.5 million was a $4-million profit over and above the appraised value of the system.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, words almost fail me at this point. How does the minister explain a document from Ernst & Young, commissioned by the then-president of the Manitoba Telephone System Oz Pedde, which suggests not only is the strategic value of the cable system very, very large, but that they should hang onto it at all costs because telcos from around the world were seeking cable assets, buying cable assets wherever they could, going into partnership with cable assets because they knew this was the evolution of telcos around the world?
Will he then respond to this document which I will table?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member fails to recognize the reality of what is going on in the telecom industry in this particular country--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Crescentwood that you asked the question, and the honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System has tried on two separate occasions now to respond to your question. I would appreciate your co-operation in affording him the same opportunity you were afforded in posing the question.
Mr. Findlay: Within the country of Canada there are nine telephone companies in the Stentor alliance. I think the member probably knows that. Only one telephone company owned a cable asset, the Manitoba Telephone System. Clearly, CRTC was not looking favourably on that particular situation. Eventually they were going to probably make some degree of recommendation that the divestiture happen.
In addition to that, there was a need for many millions of dollars of investment of capital in the system to upgrade it to give a standard of service that the consumer wants today. At the same time, there are satellite services up above capable of beaming down cable television.
I had asked the member, given those consequences, we did not want to put the taxpayer at further risk in terms of raising more capital in a very risky venture with a lot of competition. Basically, we wanted to assure the ability of somebody to do that investment to improve the quality of service to Manitobans in the form of cable television. The service providers of Manitoba Cable Television Association can and will do it.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Impact on Women
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Vodrey). Today the Liberal Women's Commission held a panel discussion on the privatization of home care and, more specifically, the impact that it will have on women. As we all know, women continue to be ghettoized in low-paying sectors of the economy. Women constitute the vast majority of home care workers, so any negative impact from the government's plan will disproportionately affect women. Joslyn Bauml, a part-time home care worker who is afraid that she will lose her job, told the panel that privatization of home care must be viewed as a women's issue.
Does the Minister responsible for the Status of Women agree that privatization of home care is another step by this government that will reinforce the ghettoization of women in low-paying sectors of the workforce?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member is correct to raise questions relating to the status of women in the workplace in Canada and in Manitoba; it is always right to do that. I want the honourable member to remember too that, in addition to the increased employment we expect to see in the home care sector in the medium- and longer-term future because of the nature of the demography of our country, many, many of our clients, a majority of our clients, are female people.
I would like the honourable member to remember that because those people are going to need services. If we go back to the way we had it in the first place, which is official NDP policy, we would destroy our Home Care program. It would collapse because it is not responsive enough. It is not efficient enough. The scheduling is not as good as it should be. Improvements can be made. I would like the honourable member to remember that the clients of our home care system, a majority of them, are women.
Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the Minister of Health then can give women the assurances that in fact we will not see drastic cuts in terms of wages to the women who make up approximately 90 percent of home care service workers.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, every indication demonstrates the commitment of this government to the Home Care program. Certainly, if you look at the budget in 1988 of somewhere around $38 million and compare it with the budget today of somewhere around $91 million, you see a very, very significant improvement in funding and a very, very significant commitment to that program. That program means employment. Hundreds and hundreds of people have been added to the list of employees of the Home Care program over the last eight years and I suggest that hundreds and hundreds more will be added in the years to come. Men, women, people are prepared to work in a competitive environment so that we can bring about excellence for the clients of our system, most of whom are women.
* (1410)
Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the Minister of Health then is, will he recognize, as many individuals who presented to the panel today, that the privatization of home care will reinforce the disadvantages already faced by women in the workforce?
Mr. McCrae: I do not think I can do that, Madam Speaker. When one considers the employment that has been generated in this program and will be generated in this program, there will be a lot of people receiving their incomes through this program, to some extent at least, not very much but to some extent, on a competitive basis and that competition brings about the best service for the client. That is the No. 1 priority. In a competitive environment wages have to be competitive in order to keep people working in the system, and that is what we expect will happen.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. This minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) now admit that they have changed their public position on selling MTS after the election. I want to ask the minister, what was the exact date that he decided MTS should be sold off?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, over the course of the last number of months, we looked at the circumstances the telephone industry was facing within Canada. There were certainly lots of technological challenges and a lot of capital cost needed to upgrade the systems. There is a lot of competition in place and the system had reached the point where 70 percent-plus of their revenue base is under competition. The regulators making change--[interjection] Over the course of several months I told the member that these sorts of issues were becoming very apparent to us, and the member might have noticed the CRTC made a major decision on rate rebalancing in November, I believe in '95, and the federal cabinet reversed that. That is a very uncertain environment for the telephone system to exist, with technology requiring more investment of capital, competition. In the analysis of all those events, we hired investment individuals to do an analysis and make recommendations back to us, which is what we reported on.
Mr. Jennissen: Why did this minister write to the secretary-treasurer of the City of Flin Flon on April 16, claiming that, quote, no decisions have been made or will be made about the privatization of MTS without public discussion--when this minister announced the sale on May 2 without any public discussion? I will table the documents.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, there has been public discussion for some time on this issue. There will continue to be public discussion in the upcoming months as we go through the process in this House of ultimately introducing legislation and the process that will follow thereafter.
Privatization--Impact on Rural Manitoba
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): How will this minister address the concerns of northern residents who currently pay less than one-quarter of the actual cost of residential telephone service, a dividend of approximately $35 each month, and who will no longer enjoy such a benefit once MTS comes under private for-profit ownership?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I want to inform the member that he is wrong, wrong, wrong a hundred percent of the time. He absolutely fails to pay any attention to how telephone rates are regulated in this country. They are regulated by CRTC, for his information, as they are for Bell Canada and B.C. Tel which are privately owned companies. That form of regulation will remain exactly the same in the future as it does today. So he is dead wrong. He is misinforming the public with that kind of a statement.
I really appreciate the kinds of comments coming from the public, headlines like: a good thing and employees are happy with it, pragmatic privatization and other comments from the Brandon Sun, it is a good issue for Manitobans. Those are the comments from Manitobans. They understand the issue. That member is trying to misrepresent and fearmonger by irresponsible statements.
Brandon General Hospital
Service Reduction
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.
Because of millions of dollars of cuts to the Brandon General Hospital budget in recent years, there has been a reduction in the number of services offered by that hospital. Waiting time for operations is getting longer. Ear, nose and throat care and full-time ophthalmology services are no longer available, and now Brandon General Hospital is about to lose it thoracic surgeon. At the same time, this minister has reneged on promises to modernize and redevelop the hospital facilities.
My question is, how can the Minister of Health, who is also the MLA for Brandon West, allow the Brandon General Hospital to deteriorate as an important regional hospital in this province?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): That will not be happening, Madam Speaker. I wonder if the honourable member agrees with the thoracic surgeon who is leaving Brandon, that what we need is a two-tier system for medicare in Manitoba. I wonder, since he is going to make reference to that particular position, if the honourable member for Brandon East agrees with that position, that we ought to have one system for the rich and another system for everybody else in Manitoba.
Transition Funding
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Can the minister explain why $38 million is being allocated for hospital transition support in Winnipeg, as outlined on page 9 of the 1996 budget document, and no monies apparently are being provided for adjustments at the Brandon General Hospital or indeed other hospitals outside of Winnipeg? Why is there no transition support for the Brandon General Hospital?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I think the honourable member is aware that Brandon is 127 miles away from the city of Winnipeg and its role in the Urban Planning Partnership is somewhat unique from the role of the other hospitals in the city of Winnipeg, so the honourable member ought to work with apples and apples when he wants to raise questions in this House.
The honourable member is the pioneer of hacking and slashing at Brandon General Hospital. He and his colleagues, in 1987, calling it health reform, laying out no supports anywhere else, hacked and slashed away at the hospital beds in the Brandon General Hospital. I am not about now to take very much advice from the honourable member whose only idea of health reform was to hack and slash and not to do anything in the community, not to work with the nursing profession in the development of nurse resource centres, not to build the breast screening program province-wide and not to do all of the other things that are part of a well-thought-out reform program, Madam Speaker.
Brandon, Manitoba
Physician Resources
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, our government has a very proud record of developing the Brandon General Hospital, whether it be a Westman regional laboratory--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, with a final supplementary question.
* (1420)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Can the Minister of Health explain why the city of Brandon is losing so many doctors?
Three have left recently and three more are expected to leave before the end of the summer. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to replace those doctors that have either left or are about to leave, and therefore Brandon and the Brandon General Hospital are going to suffer a decline in medical services available to the citizens of that area. So my question specifically to the minister: Why is the level of medical services declining in the city of Brandon?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if the record of the New Democrats was such a proud one, why is it that the people of Manitoba, in 1988, so very, very clearly threw all of the New Democrats out of office in the province of Manitoba? The largest tax grab in the history of the province of Manitoba was brought about by the Doer-Pawley government and the honourable member for Brandon East was senior among them. In fact, when the cuts happened at Brandon General Hospital, we were not able to find the honourable member for Brandon East to explain that situation.
With respect to doctors, we have traditionally in Canada an outflow and an inflow--more inflow, mind you, than outflow--but in recent times we have heard reports of some surgeons in Brandon and specialists leaving for more favourable fields, claiming that the two-tiered system is for them. Well, it is not for me. If the honourable member wants to fight for the two-tiered system, let him do it.
Pharmacare
Deductible Calculation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, many families in this province are suffering because their deductible for Pharmacare has gone up four or five times with this government. I want to ask the minister, how can he justify calculating the deductible for Pharmacare based on the income from veterans pensions when people on veterans pensions do not even use Pharmacare and that this is penalizing them in an unfair way? How can he justify calculating the deductible for Pharmacare based on veterans pensions when veteran pensioners have their medications paid by Veterans Affairs?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I remind the honourable member of her inaugural speech in this House where she quoted Karl Marx proudly. Karl Marx, she was so proud to tell us, said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
This honourable member who worships at the shrine of Karl Marx ought to be cheering loudly for our Pharmacare program.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order. I would ask that you have the minister withdraw his incorrect statements. He may be able to read my mind if he knew that I was quoting Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth in my opening comments.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the same point of order?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, I guess so, Madam Speaker, on the same point of order.
I remember it well, a great man said, and that is what the honourable member for Radisson said and she has just referred to two. We will have to do some research on the point of order raised by the honourable member, but it sounds awfully like something Karl Marx wrote.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order--order, please. Time for Oral Questions has legally expired. I will deal with the point of order.
I will take the point of order under advisement and, if necessary, report back to the House.