Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 50, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et modifications corrélatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mrs. Vodrey: It is my pleasure to introduce the new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for second reading in this House.

This new legislation has been introduced to replace the existing Freedom of Information Act which we believe is no longer adequate to address the serious concerns Manitobans have about the privacy and protection of personal information held by government or other public bodies.

In this bill, we provide a balance between the right of the individual to have their privacy respected and the right of access information held by public bodies. We have extended the scope of this act beyond that of government and Crown corporations. Public bodies now covered by this legislation include municipal governments, school divisions, universities, regional health authorities, hospitals and nonprofit personal care homes. The provisions governing access to publicly held information remains similar to those in the existing act with some clarifications and a couple of new additions.

There is now, for example, a specific requirement for notifying third parties when access to records is being considered, and third parties have the right to appeal a decision to permit access. For reasons of individual or public safety, law enforcement requirements or third party privacy infringements, a public body has the authority to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record. Public bodies may also refuse access to information if these requests are deemed to be repetitive or an abuse of the right of access. Any such refusal of this nature will be subject to an appeal to the Ombudsman.

Recognizing a need to be flexible in communicating with the public, this legislation permits an individual to make an oral request as opposed to a written one; for example, if there is a disability or a language barrier.

* (1640)

The most significant change, Madam Speaker, is the new privacy section. We have added specific provisions to assure all Manitobans that their individual privacy is respected and protected by law. We have clearly defined what constitutes personal information and outlined how it must be collected to ensure the highest possible degree of privacy. Specifically, personal information should be collected directly from the individual, and they must be informed of the purpose behind this collection. This new act does, in specific circumstances, permit the collection of personal information through other channels. These circumstances may include assisting law enforcement agencies, enforcing a maintenance order under The Family Maintenance Act, or the auditing, monitoring, or evaluation of government or other public bodies.

However, Madam Speaker, this legislation ensures that personal information may only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or for a consistent purpose, or with the consent of the individual, or as authorized by law. Any proposed use or disclosure of personal information not provided by law will be subject to a review. This review will begin with the department or public body receiving the request. Any request for bulk disclosures of personal information or proposals to use or disclose personal information for data-matching purposes will be referred to a privacy assessment review committee for advice in making a decision.

Decisions on such proposals would be made by the head of the public body holding the information. The new privacy provisions of this legislation will require public bodies holding personal information to take reasonable security precautions to prevent unauthorized access use, disclosure or destruction of this data. Individuals will have the right to access their personal information and to correct any errors. There is also an onus on the public body to take reasonable steps to keep personal information in their possession accurate.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has expanded and strengthened the powers of the provincial Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will continue to review complaints and negotiate and/or make recommendations on access requests. However, under the new act where there is a significant matter of legal principle or public interest in question, the Ombudsman will have the authority to go to court on behalf of an applicant denied access. This will also include the ability to intervene in a court case involving an access complaint.

Provisions of this legislation permit the Ombudsman to engage in, or commission, research, undertake audits on information and privacy issues and, if necessary, recommend changes in practices concerning the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Third parties who must be notified of a potential disclosure of information concerning them may appeal to the Ombudsman, if they feel its release would be an unreasonable invasion of their privacy. There will be an annual report tabled each year in the Manitoba Legislature concerning the work of the Ombudsman's office under this act. My department will also continue to publish an annual report under this act.

We have, Madam Speaker, developed The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act through public consultations and the distribution of a discussion paper on access and privacy issues. We incorporated the thoughtful input from this process, our experience in administering the FOI Act, and our research conducted in the drafting of this bill to prepare this act. This legislation along with a companion act covering personal health information concerns will provide clear standards for all parties involved in the collection, handling and use of personal information. It is the responsibility of government and other public bodies, as trustees of this vast collection of information, to enact legislation which will adequately protect and secure these rights for its citizenry. That is what this act represents, our government's acknowledgment of that responsibility to all Manitobans.

I am confident that The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will effectively address the concerns of Manitobans on issues of privacy and information access.

So, Madam Speaker, in bringing forward this bill for second reading, it is the product of actually a great deal of work which has been done with the community over the period of a little more than a year. As I said, it began with the distribution of a discussion paper, which provided input, and based on the information that we received--and in fact it was very thoughtful information, some of it presented in writing, some of it presented orally, very thoughtful information to us on these two very separate issues. I think that is one of the most important parts in explaining to the people of Manitoba what this new act does, that it contains two very important principles or sections, the section on access and the section on privacy protection. So we appreciated the information we received during the period of our distribution of the access of that paper and used that information, along with information which we found in doing research, to prepare for this act.

In doing research, we looked at what other provinces across this country had in fact put forward, if they had anything which dealt with the access side--most did--and whether or not they had any bills dealing with the privacy side as well, and we examined the concepts and the principles which they had incorporated. But, Madam Speaker, we also did a lot of research ourselves, and we based our work on the fair information practices, principles which are well acknowledged in all jurisdictions, to my knowledge, which sets forward how information should be collected and should be stored and should be corrected. So it was the fair information practices, it was an ability to review the acts of other provinces, and it was information which was collected through our opportunity to speak to the public which formed the basis of the act which we have put forward in Manitoba. Again, I believe that that was really a very substantial way to go about developing the act.

Just to restate briefly, there are again, within the access side, very few changes from our FOI act. Because in fact the FOI act, on the access side, really worked quite well, and the changes that are on the access side of the act deal primarily with clarifications where there may not have been a clear direction when we were looking at the principles of access against which to measure a request, and also some clarifications and some additions.

The major addition, as I mentioned earlier, was the protection for the third party, where in this act it is clearly put forward that a third party must not be notified where there is an access request for information, and that third party may in fact be incidentally included in the information required under the access request. In the past, that was not in the legislation, and this is in fact, I believe, a very important protection now for the third party, and allows that third party a period of time in which to consider any concerns and then to report that back. So the third party being included again on the access side becomes very important.

* (1650)

On the privacy side, as I said, this is really brand new, based on fair information practices, and as the bill shows, it deals in the very first instance with how information is to be collected, that that information needs to be collected with the consent of the person from whom the information is being received. That consent is again determined by how the information should be collected. So I think that the people of Manitoba, who have every right to believe that their privacy is respected by law, can be confident that their consent is required, and then, Madam Speaker, again, we have every right to expect that that information will be held securely, and not only held securely, but then in addition that people have the right to believe that the information which is being held, that personal information, is correct. If they believe that it is not correct, there is a process within this bill which allows for the correction of information, or if there is any dispute about whether or not that information is correct. So I believe on the privacy side that provides an excellent foundation.

Madam Speaker, the bill then is very specific on, I believe it is, 29 reasons or 29 opportunities in which there may be a disclosure of personal information. So the bill on the privacy side is very explicit. What our government has provided in this bill, which is not in any other bill across the country, is to say that, if a request for information that is considered under the privacy side is not part of any one of those 29 reasons for disclosure of information, we have set up then this privacy access review committee. This is the only one in the country, which I believe makes our legislation very significant. With this PARC committee, they will then be able to examine the request for information, again, measure it to see if in fact it may fit any of the categories and otherwise provide some advice to the head of a public body.

As you will see in the legislation, Madam Speaker, it is mandatory for government to make referrals to this privacy review committee. But it will also be open to all the other public bodies who are covered by this legislation to use that committee also if they wish. They are entitled or permitted to set up their own review committee. If they do not wish to, for whatever reasons they may have, they may, in fact, use the one which will be set up by government. That is our effort to provide some assistance to the very wide scope of this legislation.

I would just like to take a moment as well to speak about the scope of this legislation, which is, in fact, much broader than the previous FOI which dealt basically with simply governments and Crown corporations. The scope of this legislation on both the access side and the privacy side has now been extended through this bill, and the extension now includes municipalities. It includes educational groups including universities. It includes now hospital authorities, by way of example. Madam Speaker, my department will be working with all of these additional public bodies to ensure that they have a very good understanding of the legislation. They did participate in the development of the legislation, but now, as we look at how it will apply to their individual public body groups, we will be working with them and have made this commitment to them that we will be wanting to make sure that they fully understand and understand very well exactly what has been covered in this legislation.

So, Madam Speaker, with those remarks, then I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our government on this bill.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, have a number of words that I would like to put on the record with respect to Bill 50, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy and Consequential Amendments Act. This is a very important piece of legislation, as I am sure many members of the Chamber rely on the Freedom of Information in order to get the type of information that we are unable to get when we ask the government of the day on a wide variety of different issues, questions of detail in particular. I could come up with endless examples. In fact, our research person has filed and used through the Freedom of Information on numerous occasions the opportunity to solicit more detailed information because, in part, we have been stonewalled from the government in trying to get responses directly from the ministry.

I will attempt to be brief on this legislation, but to point out a couple of specific examples, under the old act, the government department was required to respond to a freedom of information request in 30 days. If they did not, then this was considered refusal for access. Under the new act, the government now is only required to make reasonable effort to respond to a request in 30 days.

Well, Madam Speaker, would it surprise the opposition members of the House or all members of this House if I told you that the Department of Finance has asked for a 30-day extension because it considers a person on vacation and a person who calls in sick reasons for not answering an FOI request in 30 days. The term "reasonable" is subject to an arbitrary interpretation.

Madam Speaker, what we have seen in the amendments that are being brought forward or the replacement that is being brought forward are very strong actions that can be taken by the government to easily put aside information that not only the opposition parties or members might want to get from the government but also the average citizen as it tries to get a better understanding of something that has been requested. We cannot underestimate the importance of allowing individuals the opportunity, and what I am concerned with is that the government is putting in or making it too easy for the government to say no or the department heads to say no.

The minister responsible made reference to the appeal mechanism of the provincial Ombudsman's office. Well, Madam Speaker, we know how taxed that particular office is today and how resources are very scarce within that particular office, and now we see, again, a further reliance on that particular office.

I like the idea of the authority or the power that we are giving the office in terms of, ultimately, to take it to a court situation. I think that is very positive. There are some aspects of the legislation in terms of the expansion and trying to protect the individual private rights, but far too often what we have seen is the government trying to use as excuses the protection of private rights to prevent us from being able to get valuable information that assists us in holding this government and the departments more accountable for their actions.

That is one of the primary reasons we have a great deal of concern and question the actions that the government is taking with respect to this particular piece of legislation. So even though we might see some positives in it, there are a number of strong reservations that we have with this legislation, and we will see what happens once it goes to the committee stage.

But we have those very strong reservations and are very reluctant in terms of giving any sort of endorsement to this particular piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, because we recognize the importance of allowing and having freedom of information access made available. We applauded the actions from the--actually, one could go back to the New Democratic government where they did, in fact, bring up the whole issue of trying to make the whole system a little bit more accountable, and we applaud the government--[interjection] Well, very rarely do I ever say nice things, and they should not take it in any way. Where one can give credit inside the Chamber, sometimes I like to think that I can give credit.

* (1700)

Madam Speaker, the idea and the concept is a very positive one. We have very strong reservations as to what degree this government has interpreted what sort of information can, in fact, be released. I have talked about the Mack truck clause that is currently in the legislation in which it allows the government virtually to say no to anything that is out there. I have seen whited out portions of information that have been provided which one must question, or the holding off or providing information, and unjustifiably in many cases not providing information in a timely fashion. The government needs to improve significantly on providing this sort of information. With those few words, I will leave my comments at that.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill No. 51, The Personal Health Information Act; Loi sur les renseignements médicaux personnels, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today and an honour to introduce Bill No. 51, The Personal Health Information Act to this Legislature for second reading. With the passage of this bill, and I would anticipate, I would hope that the House in giving its consideration will pass it into law. Manitoba will be the first jurisdiction in Canada and one of the very few in North America to have legislation dealing exclusively with access to and confidentiality of personal health information.

This bill is the result of a consultation with the public and stakeholders through a discussion which began with the discussion paper circulated in May of 1996 and with other stakeholders since that time. Most recently, a presentation on the proposed bill was made involving the stakeholders. I had an opportunity as minister to spend an afternoon with them going through the various detail and having a discussion on concerns and issues. Many of the suggestions made by those stakeholders collectively, as a group, have found their way into this legislation and some of them in an ancillary way to that introduced earlier this afternoon by my colleague.

Madam Speaker, to put matters in perspective of where we are coming--and I think it is important to do this before we get into a description of the bill itself. The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), in Question Period on a number of days, has asked questions about this. She has in her remarks linked this piece of legislation with the health information network which we are attempting to build in Manitoba and, in some way, imply that this is putting the public at great risk and that this legislation is inadequate to meet need and some terrible adventure on which we are embarking.

First of all, I want to deal with the issue of technology. Let me make clear that this bill is not to deal specifically with the electronic medium of moving information. It is to deal with personal health information however it is transmitted, however it is stored, however it is collected. It is there to govern a paper system as well as an electronic system, so let us not confuse the issue. Moving to a health information network on an electronic means is one issue. We will debate that in its appropriate time, and I look forward to that debate. This legislation is designed to protect all personal health information however collected, however stored, however moved, however used.

Now, just on that point of a health information network, I have said before that one of the reasons why this becomes important, obviously, whether it be for paper or electronic medium is we as a province are moving towards a health information network that does move information through electronic means.

Madam Speaker, if you look at the life in which most of us lead today, the vast majority of data collected about us or for us, or that we use in our daily lives is already on an electronic means. I want to touch upon this because the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has made some statements in this House that I find very discouraging, but not surprising given the stance of her party on many issues. When you just think about it for a moment, our personal financial information, our mortgage, our banking cards are all dealt with electronically today. Very little, if any, is kept on a paper system or moved fundamentally on a paper system. Information about our land titles and mortgages is kept electronically. When we walk into the supermarket and order groceries, purchase groceries, often we pay electronically. The inventory system that keeps track of our groceries and the inventory in the store and what we are purchasing is electronic. When we go to a store, the wand is used to move over numbers that record what we have purchased. This is all handled electronically.

Madam Speaker, so much of our tax information is handled electronically. In fact, today you can file your taxes via your computer at home with e-file, with Revenue Canada. Item after item after item in the way we live our lives, the information that flows from our daily activity in virtually all cases in our life is now moved through electronic medium, except, by and large, in the health sector. So moving health into the modern age as we end this century and begin a new one is not surprising; in fact, the question is really why this has not happened before. When I hear the remarks of the member for Osborne, what I hear, in essence, is a dinosaur. I hear someone who is saying we should not move to this medium when everything else in our life has moved to this medium because it is far more efficient.

If in fact we are moving to that medium, as in fact we are one of the leaders in Canada getting there, and inevitably within a few years I think everybody will be there, we need to ensure that protection is in place for health information. We also need to ensure that it is in place for other mediums because there still is a paper system there. Madam Speaker, let us not for one moment think we are moving backwards. I have tabled in this Legislature in response to my critic the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who made, I would consider, a very unthought-out statement that we were putting health information at risk to a greater degree than ever before in the history of this province. Yet I think that comment speaks loudly about someone who has not done his research because where did we start on personal health information?

In the journals of this very Assembly, going back into the 1800s, the information on the our public hospitals that was published in the journals and records of this Assembly for public view listed the names of patients in the hospital, their age, their sex, their religion, their country of birth, their present residence, the disease they suffered from, their date of admission, date of discharge, state of health when discharged and proposed residence upon leaving, and in many case, diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, diarrhea, all of these, bronchitis, a host of illnesses were listed here. Some of them today would be extremely embarrassing for the individuals involved. So that is where we started--total public disclosure.

I remember the days in youth, growing up in Selkirk, where information about people in hospitals was published in the community newspaper so that you could send flowers or visit an individual. Well, today that would not be acceptable. By our standards of public information and disclosure of private information, that would not be acceptable, and that is why in fact we are moving with this legislation.

* (1710)

What does this legislation do, Madam Speaker, in essence? I think that is very important to discuss. First of all, what is its purpose? The purpose of this proposed act is to incorporate the common law right, which already exists, into legislation, that right to examine and receive a copy of one's personal health information from the person who has custody and control of that information. We are establishing in law that that is a trust relationship, that the information is owned by the individual. That, I think, has been established already by the Supreme Court of Canada. We are reconfirming in this statute that the ownership of the actual information rests with the individual and the person who holds it, in whatever medium, whether it be paper or electronically, is the trustee of that information, Madam Speaker.

This bill also provides an individual with the right to request corrections to their personal health information and the right to control the manner in which personal health information can be collected. It also limits the use, disclosure or destruction of personal health information, and it provides for an independent review of the decisions of the trustees of that information.

What information is protected by this act, Madam Speaker? The information protected is personal health information about an identifiable individual. It does not apply to anonymous or statistical information. What is the scope of the bill? The scope of the proposed act extends into the health private sector. That is one of the reasons why we, in fact, have two pieces of legislation here because the bill introduced by my colleague deals with information in the public sector. We know that information in the health sector, in individual doctors' offices, clinic offices, private facility offices, Madam Speaker, is in the private sector, and we wanted to ensure that was covered as well.

It also covers persons who collect or maintain personal health information, and these include health professionals regulated by an act of the Legislature and others who are designated in the regulations. It includes health care facilities such as hospitals, personal care homes, laboratories. It includes public bodies such as government departments, Crown agencies, municipalities and educational bodies and also those private agencies that provide health services, such as the Victorian Order of Nurses and We Care.

Madam Speaker, Part 2 of this act deals with access, and Part 2 deals with access issues and sets out the right to examine, receive a copy of and request a correction to one's personal health information. It includes the obligation of a trustee to respond promptly to one's request for access, to provide an individual with an explanation of the terms, codes or abbreviations and to otherwise assist that individual in accessing information. That makes it a requirement of the trustee.

It also sets out the limited circumstances in which a trustee can deny access to one's personal health information. These are very rare occasions. An example is where a trustee believes on reasonable grounds which are testable, Madam Speaker, with the Ombudsman and ultimately in court that knowledge of certain information could result in physical or emotional harm to the individual requesting it or another individual. In such circumstances, the trustee must only deny access to the information that may result in harm. All other information must be provided to the individual whom it is about. The bill also provides the right to appeal such a decision.

This bill also allows for fees in providing one with access, reasonable fees in order to cover the cost of that information, and those would be set out by regulation. As well, the bill provides a trustee with the discretion to correct personal health information. Where this occurs, the trustee must allow the individual to file a concise statement of disagreement, and that statement to one's health records must be filed with the health information and notification given to any person who has had access to that file for I believe up to a year before.

Madam Speaker, Part 3 of this act provides for the confidentiality of one's personal health information. It restricts the type and amount of information that can be collected. It requires that the information be collected directly from the individual whom it is about except in prescribed circumstances, and it requires the trustee who collects the information to inform the individual of the purposes for collecting the information. It requires the trustee to ensure that personal health information is accurate and up to date before using or disclosing it. It requires the trustee to implement and comply with policies governing the retention and destruction of information. It requires the trustee to adopt reasonable administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, security, accuracy and integrity of the information. It also limits the amount of information that a trustee can use or disclose. It limits the use of information to the purposes for which it was originally collected, for a purpose directly related to that purpose or for other limited purposes as set out in the act.

Madam Speaker, this legislation restricts the situations in which a trustee can disclose their personal health information to others without the individual's consent. It governs the disclosure of information for purposes of health research, including a requirement that a research proposal be approved by a health information privacy committee to be established by the minister to deal with requests for information held by government. Where the information is maintained by a trustee other than the government, the research proposal must be approved by an institutional research ethics review committee.

Madam Speaker, it also restricts the collection or use of one's personal health identification number, and I make this point very strongly for members of the opposition who have expressed a concern in this area. This legislation prohibits the sale of personal health information.

We have seen some debate in Question Period about the use of the Ombudsman's office as the supervising authority. Madam Speaker, I think when one examines the issue, you realize very quickly, whether one calls it a privacy commission or an Ombudsman, the real issues are what powers exist.

One of the concerns that was expressed to me as we went through this review process was that the Ombudsman must have the power to audit those trustees who hold information. Without audits there is no ability obviously to check to see how the process is working, because we may never know if our individual information is not properly stored or has been released improperly. It may never come to our attention. We have no ability to file a complaint, because we would not know. If we rely solely on a complaint-driven system, it is inadequate. So we have included that in our legislation, and with the co-operation of the opposition and through LAMC, I trust that we are going to be able to properly staff the Office of the Ombudsman to deal with this role.

Madam Speaker, the two real issues that the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has raised, when you boil away all the politics and all her comments that come with it, are really two. The name of the officer, whether by calling that person a privacy commissioner or an ombudsman, somehow does that change their stature? Well, in some jurisdictions they have a privacy commissioner who has exactly the powers that we are proposing for an ombudsman. So maybe there is some legitimacy to that argument, but we have opted to keep the role of the Ombudsman, use our Ombudsman and keep the title.

The other issue is one as to whether or not we should give the power to the Ombudsman to issue binding orders. Our Ombudsman in Manitoba has traditionally operated on the view of bringing parties together and trying to work a solution on whatever issue that respects people's rights and is workable. Madam Speaker, in using the Office of the Ombudsman, that makes eminently good sense, we believe, to continue with that mode. We have given the Ombudsman and this legislation the power to go to court on an issue if they feel that that is necessary. So we have expanded that role.

Madam Speaker, one administrative issue that arises out of this in setting up a separate Office of the Ombudsman is, we do not know today what workload will arise out of this. The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) makes it sound as if there is a huge workload there. None of us really know. So we felt administratively it was much better to place this work in the Office of the Ombudsman. We are a small province. We are not Ontario. We are not the federal government, who service much larger constituencies. We are a small province, so we felt it was best to go to an existing office. We thought all the skills and talents could properly be housed there with sufficient staff to deal with this issue.

If over time it is felt at that office there is so much work related to this that a separate office is required, we have allowed for that in having a review of this legislation in five years. So if the member for Osborne is correct that there is an overwhelming workload here, in five years time this Legislature, through that review, can set up a separate office, and I would not oppose that, Madam Speaker, if it was warranted. But if we set up a separate office today and there was not a workload sufficient to warrant a separate office, investigators, and staff, and they had very little to do, it would be terribly difficult for this Legislature to reduce that function and amalgamate it into the Ombudsman's office.

* (1720)

So before we run, let us walk. Let us see if this will work with the Ombudsman's office with the expanded power that we have given, with added resources that we will have to provide to the Ombudsman and see where it is in five years.

So with that proposal and with the review as part of the statute, the statutory review requirement in the statute for review, many who attended that briefing with me found that that was an acceptable approach to work through that issue. I think the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has made far more out of this issue than it actually is in reality.

We have included in this legislation, as well, a penalty section that provides for a penalty of some $20,000 to an individual or corporation who breaches this. Madam Speaker, we have also provided that an employee of a trustee who does breach this legislation is also liable to be charged with a penalty. I think that is a very important point that gives a greater comfort level to individuals.

Madam Speaker, this is a very important step forward for Manitobans. I can remember on many occasions we have heard stories of individuals finding personal health information, left in garbage bins, not properly disposed of. That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable. So today, we do not have statutory protection for that. This is one of the first bills in Canada of its kind to do that. It will provide that protection that I think is somewhat overdue. It also allows us to move forward into the 21st Century by giving the public the comfort level that they need in moving to the electronic medium for moving and storing information about their personal health and have all of the efficiencies that come with that for them in the delivery of health care that they now enjoy with their finances, with their shopping, with many other aspects of their lives. This bill prepares us for the next century. I bring it to the House for your thoughtful consideration.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 2, (The Arbitration and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'arbitrage et modifications corrélatives) on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave has been granted.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I did want to put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 2. I have always, Madam Speaker, and will continue to argue and articulate as to the benefits of arbitration as opposed to ultimately having to go to a court. Where we can provide an alternative to a courtroom setting, I think it is a very positive thing. From what I understand, what Bill 2 attempts to do is to make arbitration that much more accessible as opposed to some individuals who otherwise would have to go through the court process. To that degree, the concept of anything that allows a larger role for arbitration over the court process is something I do not have any problem in terms of being relatively supportive of.

I think that there is a responsibility for the government to take a look at the way in which individuals will enter into conflict and how the government might play a role at trying to provide tools that will allow those individuals, with minimal apprehension being built up, with minimal hard feelings, if you like, towards each other being built up. The ultimate tool, one would argue, is in fact the court. I think far too often we underestimate the importance of arbitration and mediation as a viable positive alternative to the court system. That is in essence, as I say, the reason why, when I have looked at this particular piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, that I think it is a very positive move towards bringing more of a reliance on arbitration. In the long run, I believe that will provide for more harmony where you have the individuals going before an arbitrator as opposed to a judge, and also, I guess, the potential for savings. I imagine lawyers might not necessarily be the biggest fan of the arbitrators or the increased roles of arbitration, but there still is a role that can be played for lawyers even in this area.

Having said those very few words, Madam Speaker, we would like to see this bill go into the committee stage. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity.

An Honourable Member: You are voting with us, Kevin, on this one? You are voting with us?

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, on this one.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill remains standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman), Bill 5 (The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le programme d'encouragement à l'exploration minière), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave has been granted.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is again my pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 5, The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program Repeal Act. The mining industry is an important economic industry, as we all know, for Manitobans, not only northern Manitoba, but the province as a whole. Its success impacts not only on the North, but influences southern Manitoba's economy significantly as well. In all, it appears that for every dollar we spend on the fostering of mining industry, we can expect another two dollars of economic activity, many would say.

The bill before this House deals with the repeal of the number of mining incentive programs that have been replaced. The Liberal Party is proud to support this particular bill, and will continue the support to Manitoba's mining industry, which plays such a pivotal role in our economy.

Madam Speaker, what we have seen is some fairly positive things that the government has done. There are sectors of the economy in which this government has had abysmal performance. The most significant one is, in fact, in the manufacturing industry in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) knows full well that the government has not excelled in that area. In fact, when the member for Brandon had raised the question the other day on that particular issue, I thought it is always interesting the way in which the Minister of Finance tries to make it look better than it actually is.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, there are some areas in the economy in which the province is doing relatively well, and in the mining area, we have seen some fairly significant efforts. In fact, some of us were interested when they had the one cabinet shuffle in which Mr. Orchard was taken out of Health and put into Energy and Mines, and he was thinking of diamonds and how many diamond mines that there could be in the province of Manitoba. I do not believe that he found any. I could be wrong. Maybe there were some diamond mines that were found, but I do recognize that this is one of the areas in which the government has done a relatively decent job. Mind you, many would attribute some of the successes, such as the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, to some of the revenues that were generated from mining, some of the mining taxes that even the former NDP administration had put into place.

So it is good to see in so many ways that mining as a whole in the province is doing relatively well. We hope, and it is somewhat cynical--not cynical--

An Honourable Member: Cyclical.

Mr. Lamoureux: "Cyclical" is the word I am looking for. Thank you very much.

We all hope that the price of nickel, in particular--and I look at the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)--remains at a relatively decent price that allows for the community of Thompson to continue to grow. So many northern communities rely on, and all of us in the province benefit by, this particular industry.

* (1730)

With those very few words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see this particular bill go to committee.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 7 (The Midwifery and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur les sages-femmes et modifications corrélatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, the--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Broadway has been recognized to put comments on the record at second reading stage on Bill 7.

Mr. Santos: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill provided for the resumption of midwifery in the province of Manitoba after they had been adopted in the provinces of Ontario, in British Columbia and in Alberta. I noted when I was reading Exodus that the traditional type of midwives had already been in existence since antiquity.

An Honourable Member: That is a long time ago.

Mr. Santos: A long, long time ago, that is beyond almost memory, because after the death of Joseph, the son of Jacob, the Egyptians who were enslaving the children of Israel, they noticed that the children of Israel were multiplying abundantly and they almost filled the land of Egypt. There was a new Pharaoh who ascended to the throne, and he saw all this multiplication of the slaves, and he was afraid. So he called the two midwives whose name was Shiphrah and the other name was Puah. The Pharaoh commanded the midwives and said, when you do your office of midwifery, when you deliver the children of the women of Israel, if the child is a male, you kill the male, and if it is a female, you let them live.

But these two midwives were God-fearing people and so they owed their allegiance more to God than to the Pharaoh, and so they disobeyed the Pharaoh and let the children of Israel live. The Pharaoh noticed this and so he called the two midwives and asked them, why are you not following my commandment? The midwife said, well, the women of Israel are not like the Egyptian women; before we arrived as midwife, they already had delivered, so we have no way of knowing and/or executing your command. That was the excuse they gave. In other words, they can self-deliver themselves earlier in time before the midwives arrived, so they cannot follow the Pharaoh's command.

There was now a man who married a daughter of Levi, and the woman bore a child--[interjection] This is the story. So she hid the child for three months because the Pharaoh had a new law passed saying we do not rely any more on midwives. All you Egyptians, as soon you see that a child is born of a woman of Israel, if they are male, you just kill them, you throw them into the river, you drown them if they are boys, but if they are girls you let them live. That was the new law, edict of the Pharaoh, given to all his people. So what happened then? After she could no longer hide the little baby, she devised a small ark of bulrushes, put some slime in it to strengthen the bottom and then let it float into the river among the flags. It so happened that the daughter of the Pharaoh was about to wash herself in the river, and as she does so, descended into the river, and all her ladies were walking down the bank. She saw this little ark and she opened it, and there was a baby. She recognized the baby and said this is a child of a Hebrew woman. In the meantime, she had compassion on the baby. Although she is the daughter of the Pharaoh, and although the Pharaoh's command is to kill every boy and to throw them into the river, she had compassion.

Then the sister of the man who was watching all this happening approached the daughter of the Pharaoh and said, would you like me to call a Hebrew woman to nurse the child? The Pharaoh's daughter said, yes, I would like you to do that. So she called the baby's mother herself to nurse the child, and the daughter of the Pharaoh said to the mother of the child, I am going to pay you your wages, you take this child away and nurse him. So the baby's mother, the natural mother of the child, took the child away and nursed him, then, under the direction of the daughter of the Pharaoh and protection. So despite the command and the edict of the Pharaoh himself, his own daughter is violating the command of the Pharaoh in order to save the life of this little child.

So the boy grew up, and she called him her son. He became an adopted son of the daughter of the Pharaoh, and she named him Moses because, she said, I drew him out of the water. So you could see that even in those days of antiquity, the traditional midwives had already been performing their function. There was no College of Physicians then. There were no nursing schools. There were no regulatory bodies that governed the activities, but they had been performing this function.

An Honourable Member: No medicare.

Mr. Santos: No medicare. Now we have gone full circle. Now we are returning to the traditional way of caring for the children at birth. So how true it is, the saying of King Solomon, and he said: One generation passeth, another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and then hasteth back where it arises. The wind bloweth towards the south, then returneth towards the north, then whirleth about continually according to its circuit. All the rivers flow into the sea, but the sea is never full, and the water returneth where the water ariseth. That which has been, it shall be, and that which has been done, it shall be done; there is nothing new under the sun.

* (1740)

So midwifery is nothing new. It has been there all the time. It is an act of returning where we came from. We have come full circle according to the activities of society in the caring of a child and children. This bill recognizes a midwife as a primary health care provider, such that when this midwife does something about the birth of a child, it will not be considered by the government or the medical association as practising medicine without a licence, that it will be exempted from the medical art. They will also be able to provide certain pharmaceutical drugs despite The Pharmaceutical Act, because they are now recognized as a health care professional. This is now a regulated profession, and the practiser of midwifery will be insured under the health care act.

There is still some debate going on whether they should be allowing nurses alone to do the birthing of children, but I tell you in other countries this is the common practice, that the traditional midwives do all this function in society. In fact, I hate to refer to myself, but during a storm, that was the date of my birth, and there was a midwife who came to my mother's home. I was delivered by a midwife, and so was Gerard here. It is a very common thing. So traditionally we have come where we came from. We returned, and this is a good thing. I therefore agree that this bill is a good bill. If it was good enough for Moses, it should be good enough for us. He is waving his hand and he is watching us and looking at us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to put my own comments on the record on the midwifery bill, and I want to indicate my support for it. I want to commend the member for Broadway for his extensive historical research. I think his point is well taken, that this is something that--it actually quite amazes me, that we are now in 1997 actually getting back to what has been a tradition in many parts of the world, in many parts of Canada, and in fact rural Manitoba for many years, and still effectively takes place if you look at it, in many isolated communities, when a doctor cannot attend to a birth.

I know in my own family, my brother was born with the assistance of a midwife at home. I must admit that it was a very satisfactory experience for the entire family. I know it has been a concern to many women, many people generally, but particularly amongst women to get different birthing environments to move away from the sterility of hospitals, Madam Speaker, and to include the possibility of having delivery with midwives. I think that is absolutely critical.

I know in the case of our two children in Thompson, they received very good care at the Thompson General Hospital from the medical staff there. But, you know, that was one option. There were many other options that are out there.

I particularly want to commend all those who fought throughout the years to have this issue dealt with. It has been a long time coming. It has been discussed by various ministers. It is finally in place. I particularly want to commend the many women who spoke out on this issue. I know the Action Committee on the Status of Women, for example, has been raising this for many years, many individual women, and I look forward to discussions in the committee.

I recognize there will be still some complications, some questions between the medical profession and midwives in terms of jurisdiction, in terms of the kind of deliveries that are essentially legitimately done through midwives and where you have other risk factors involved that may need the assistance of a physician or may need to be done in a medical facility. But I do want to say that notwithstanding the fact some of those issues have to be dealt with and will be dealt with on an ongoing basis because of this bill, I think it is a very significant event for Manitoba and ironic in many ways. What was standard practice only a few decades ago will now be put in place. I hope it is the beginning of a growing recognition of the need for many different kinds of medical professionals to be involved in our health care system. I believe that physicians have a key role to play, but I also believe in an expanded role for nurses and other health care professionals, midwives being one aspect of the health care system.

I think we have an opportunity for a broader model. I want to put this on the record on the same day that I raised the question earlier about the shortage of physicians and surgeons in Manitoba, because one of the long-term solutions to this, I believe, is to develop the medical team concept whereby one can take doctors, give them the opportunity to work, in many cases, on salary, something, for example, that the previous Minister of Health did allocate in terms of Thompson, allow them to spend more time with patients. That is one of the concerns of many doctors now is not being able to spend enough time with patients. I would say that by then combining that with an enhanced role for nurses and other medical professionals, you will end up with a balance, because you will end up with the doctors seeing fewer patients perhaps, but nurses being able to see more and a blending even of costs, which even if it does not result in a cost saving to the system will not result in an increase.

So I think this bill, if it is taken in the true philosophical intent, will lead to what I feel is the route ahead for health care reform. Health care reform, I think, has to be based on a very general approach to who can provide care. I know it is ironic, in my own communities in northern Manitoba, that, for example, nurses can do all sorts of things when they work in a nursing station in remote communities. They have to do all sorts of things, but, of course, the same nurses are unable to practise in the same way when they hit an urban community and hit the more normal way of functioning.

The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is there are a lot of medical professionals out there that have abilities and skills that can be put into place, and I think the more we broaden that, the scope of their activities, the more we will end up with real health care reform.

I want to indicate too that we are looking forward to the presentations. There are 23 presentations before the committee. We are hoping that will be scheduled this Thursday so that we can hear the many Manitobans who I am sure want to speak out on this bill. I know there will be some people there, some women, in particular, who will be saying, you know, it is about time, glad to see it. As much as when a bill is passed, the focus is on the legislative agenda, the fact that we are now on the verge of having midwifery passed in legislation in this province I think is a testimonial to the efforts of many Manitoba women and Manitobans in general. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 7, The Midwifery and Consequential Amendments Act.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.