Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to make some comments on my resolution. A resolution–

An Honourable Member: For the record.

Mr. C. Evans: I am sorry. Read it?

I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that the resolution be accepted.

An Honourable Member: You have got to read it.

Madam Speaker: I would request that the honourable member read the resolution into the record, please.

Mr. C. Evans: Thank you very much. I do not know if I remember how to read.

"WHEREAS the five principles of Medicare are universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability, and public administration; and

"WHEREAS more and more often, residents of Manitoba cannot access health services when and where they need them; and

"WHEREAS the chronic shortage of hospital beds in Winnipeg, especially at the tertiary care centres, has a serious negative impact across the province; and

"WHEREAS following an incident where a man suffering serious gunshot wounds could not be admitted to the Health Sciences Centre, the Interlake Regional Health Authority wrote to the Vice President of Clinical Services for the Winnipeg Hospital Authority to express concerns about timely access to medical care; and

"WHEREAS the Interlake Regional Health Authority asked, 'What do you suggest we do when H.S.C. refuses to take the trauma patient, either because their O.R.'s are full, or because they have "no surgical beds."' and

"WHEREAS the Interlake Regional Health Authority letter goes on to say, 'What we in rural Manitoba find upsetting is the second-class treatment our patients receive from Winnipeg Hospitals. If our patient had shot himself in Winnipeg, he surely would have been treated at H.S.C.'; and

"WHEREAS serious incidents have occurred across the province where patients should have been admitted to Winnipeg hospitals for treatment or surgery, but could not be transferred because there were no available beds; and

"WHEREAS by failing to ensure that there are enough hospital beds to admit seriously ill or injured Manitobans, the Provincial Government is undermining the principles of Medicare.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to consider taking immediate action to ensure that all Manitobans have access to quality health services when they need them, regardless of where they live."

Mr. C. Evans: Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to make some comments with respect to the shortages of beds in our Winnipeg hospitals and also point out some of the incidents that have occurred across the province, not only in the Interlake constituency, and I am sure in other constituencies, where people have been put in a position through injury or accident or serious illness and have not been able to access specific hospitals that have no beds available for specific injuries and specific care that is needed.

This government has made plans over the years and has made promises over the years to take care of the elderly patients that we have in this province and provide personal care beds and personal care homes, so that acute care beds could be more available to those that would need them. This would, of course, as they have promised, free up these beds, would make it possible for someone from Ashern to be transferred by ambulance to the Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg at the whim of a call from the doctor in Ashern and have available a bed and the necessary service and the doctors available at the hospital to treat this injury. Madam Speaker, this has not been happening. In many situations I know–and I will relate some that have occurred in my constituency, and I know that they have occurred in other areas of the province.

But why is that? Madam Speaker, this government promises increased funding, promises funding for personal care homes to provide the chronic care and long-term beds for patients. That has not happened since 1995 alone. There have been incidents where there have been no beds available. There have been nurses cut, hospital bed cuts, funding cuts by this government, and this has created, in some cases, traumatic experiences for certain patients, certain people who have needed services, who have needed to come to Victoria, who have needed to come to Health Sciences, who have needed to come to Grace and have not been able to, who have been turned away, or in some cases have been left for days needing surgery and that not occurring because there are no nurses to take care of the situation, there are no doctors to do the operations. I have and I will, of course, provide some incidents.

The personal care home issue, when in 1995 all these promises were made, and I quote you: The government has delayed construction on many personal care home facilities that would contribute to a reduction; for an example, Lions Manor in Winnipeg. It was announced in 1992 but construction has not started. Hartney Personal Care Home was approved in 1991 and was reannounced as a priority in the 1998-99 capital plans.

Madam Speaker, the one that I would like to bring forward, and I believe next month is the official ribbon-cutting, finally after turning the sod in 1995, after taking photo ops, I am proud to say that I was at the second official opening of the personal care home in Fisher Branch after four years, longer, promised to the people in the community of Fisher Branch. I was there for the second official opening, and I am very pleased that that personal care home which is going to have 30 beds is going to be made available very, very shortly.

An Honourable Member: Then they will have another official opening.

Mr. C. Evans: And then they will have another official opening, yes.

Madam Speaker, we want to talk, too, about the availability of these beds, chronic care and acute beds, and the availability of our doctors and nurses in Winnipeg for our northern communities and for our patients and people who perhaps have to be transferred in by air. Why would a doctor in Arborg call the Health Sciences Centre on a Monday, make arrangements for a patient, a constituent who has broken his leg severely to the point that an operation was needed and, as the doctor said, as quickly as possible–waited four days sitting in a hospital, waited four days. Unquestionably, that is absolutely disgusting.

The gentleman had written to the minister at that time, to Minister Darren Praznik, explaining his situation. From 7 p.m. on July 21, he returned home, back to Riverton, on Thursday, July 31. Madam Speaker, this leg was broken so severely, so severely that this gentleman asked that if they could not do the operation in the Health Sciences Centre, could they at least transfer him to a hospital where they could do it. The minister remembers that, I think, because I wrote to the minister also, and I am sure that he would if he saw the letters.

We are not just here and I am not just here saying, bad, bad. I am saying something has to be done. Something has to be done. Where is that funding that has been promised? Where are those personal care beds that are being promised? Where are they? Are we going to wait for another election for some more sod turning? Where is the common sense? Just because rural Manitobans are in rural Manitoba and there are hospitals in sporadic communities, there are situations that cannot be handled, and these people have to be transferred to Winnipeg where the better technology, where the better operating skills are available. Is that happening? No, it is not happening.

* (1710)

Madam Speaker, another incident that occurred in my constituency. I was called by the children of the father, Mr. Kjartan Fridfinnson, who had been hauled in and sent home twice for a triple by-pass operation. The third time they called me and said, Clif, what can you do for us here? We are afraid that dad is going to die going back and forth between Arborg and Winnipeg. He needs a triple by-pass, and the doctor keeps telling him there is either an operating room not available or a bed not available or the time. That is sad, and that should not happen. It should be available; those services should be available. It should not be put on the onus of the doctors and nurses to say that we do not have the space, we do not have the nurses available, we do not have the doctors available to do it. Mr. Jonasson, who suffered a broken leg, basically said he sat and watched the poor nurses running around taking care of patients. The doctor who was supposed to do the operation for his leg came in once in a while just to see how he was doing. They could not feed him because they were scheduling him to go into his operation at any time. So, for four days, he sat in the hospital with the intravenous, not knowing when the operation was going to be, not having any indication from the operating room doctor or the operating doctor as to when the operating room was going to be made available. He then–and it is documented to the minister–suggested that he withdraw himself and take himself over to Seven Oaks to see if they could do the operation for him.

Well, the operation was finally done, and I can say that even though the bitter taste is in his mouth, the operation was a success. There were other comments that he made, but his comments were, to me personally, that the system is overworked, undersupplied and overworked. Nurses, doctors, beds available. That is not what we here on this side of the House or I think all Manitobans want to see. We want to see co-operation in the health care system. We want to see co-operation for our elderly so that the personal care home beds are available, so that those personal care homes that are available will be able to provide those extra beds. Can we wait another five years for this? No, Madam Speaker, it has gotten out of hand. It has gotten out of hand since 1992. This is 1999. Promise after promise after promise.

Madam Speaker, it is not that I want to bring out specific cases to lambaste. I am bringing out specific cases, because these people are either writing to me directly or calling me directly. Why, is the question. Why is it not available? Why can I not come from Gypsumville and go to Ashern which has a hospital? The doctors are so overworked there, and the nurses, that they cannot handle the situation in Ashern, call Winnipeg to find out where they can send this gentleman or woman and are told, keep them for another day or two because there is not anything available.

The gunshot wound, Madam Speaker, from the Interlake Authority. Now this letter is written on Interlake Regional Health Authority. I want to make a comment about that. There are people who are saying that with the new regionalization there are difficulties, and the regional boards are having these difficulties getting things into place. It is going to take time. Our regional health authority, who has received the recognition, is probably one of the ones that I think is working the hardest amongst the regional authorities, but they are not without being questioned on some of the situations.

We cannot have everything, Madam Speaker. We cannot have it perfect all the time, but what the constituents are saying is we want to see that these regional health authorities have the availability and better opportunity to be able to provide these services. I quote you, and this is from Dr. Isaacs, Dr. Piesas and Dr. Berrow, and it is copied to the College of Physicians. It is with respect to the main part.

The latest incident occurred on November 2 at 20:30 hours. A man was brought to Ashern hospital with gunshot wounds to both feet. The orthopedic resident, when they called Health Sciences Centre, said we had no beds and we might try Victoria. We had to accept the responsibility for trauma.

Madam Speaker, we do not want to see those type of situations. I do not believe any of us here, especially rural members, want to see those type of situations. The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), myself, all northern community members, do not want to see what we have seen and heard and continue to see and hear. Let us have some co-operation. Let us have some of those resources available for those people that are going to need it most. I would support that. The members on this side of the House would support that and will support it. Unfortunately, we may have to do it. Thank you.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity this afternoon to speak to our government's commitment to ensuring that all Manitobans have access to quality health services when they need them.

Since our government was elected in 1988, we have demonstrated many times over our commitment to providing quality health services in our province. We have demonstrated it in our funding commitments. We have demonstrated it in our service enhancements. We have demonstrated it in our efforts to improve how our health system in Manitoba is organized.

Consistently health has been our government's highest spending priority. In 1988, we committed 31 percent of our budget on health. This year, nearly 35 percent of the province's budget goes to health care. Today we spend $1,691 on health care for every man, woman and child in our province, compared to $1,488 in 1990-91. This is at the same time we have faced a drop in federal spending on health care from $298 to $175 per capita. Our balanced budgets in recent years and our efforts to repay the province's debt are freeing up resources for health care that would have otherwise been lost to interest payments.

Over the years, our increases in health spending have supported numerous improvements to our health services. Funding for home care has almost tripled in the past decade and continues to grow. The funding of more than 200 supportive housing spaces, the introduction of a new program, Companion Care, and the expansion of mental health services are examples of improvements in our community health services.

Significant funding increases have been provided to the regional health authorities to respond to the growing demand for tests and treatment. Bone density services have been introduced in Brandon and expanded in Winnipeg. Diagnostic service capacity is expanding for CT scans and for ultrasound services. The expansion of the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation will expand treatment capacity and the range of services available.

As part of the new funding going to RHAs, the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) has recently had the pleasure of announcing $1.1 million for pediatric speech and hearing services in rural and northern Manitoba. Of this funding, $150,000 will be allocated to preschool children with lifelong disabilities through the outreach therapy program in partnership with Family Services, the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities and the Rehabilitation Centre for Children.

This $1.1-million funding is in addition to the $420,000 recently provided to the Winnipeg Hospital Authority for expanded pediatric speech and hearing services in Winnipeg. As well, the government is providing $122,000 annually for the innovative three year pilot project Promise Years involving prevention, early identification and intervention of communications disorders in preschool children in South Westman.

Improving children's ability to communicate improves their health and learning, and thus contributes to the health of Manitoban families and Manitoban communities. Working in co-operation with the Children and Youth Secretariat, the Health department is providing financial assistance and education to help families raise healthy children. Services such as Women and Infant Nutrition, Stop FAS, BabyFirst, and EarlyStart are examples of this support.

To respond to the rapid rise of diabetes in our population, kidney dialysis is now available in the communities of Dauphin, Flin Flon, The Pas, Pine Falls, Thompson, Morden, Portage la Prairie and Ashern, in addition to the city of Winnipeg.

Over the past 10 years the number of haemodialysis stations has increased by 90 percent. At the same time, Manitoba Health is working with the regional health authorities and aboriginal communities to develop and implement strategies to stem the incidence and severity of diabetes. Plans to establish foot, vision, kidney and blood pressure clinics to help prevent the complication of diabetes is one example.

Misericordia is a 24-hour urgent care centre. The Aboriginal Health and Wellness Centre and the introduction of a number of community health resource centres across the province are examples of new and alternate services available to Manitobans. We are moving closer to the introduction of midwifery in the province. We are also involved in discussions with the regional health authorities on improving the province's emergency transportation centre or system as well.

Our achievement in improving health services have been alongside our efforts to introduce reforms to our province's overall health system. Regionalizing our health services delivery system, consolidating specialized programs in our urban hospitals and emphazing the shift to more appropriate community resources are examples.

There has been much progress today, and we will continue to move ahead to meet the changing needs of our health system. Our support for expanded vaccination programs, mammography and other screening programs and prevention strategies in diabetes and HIV serve as a foundation for our shift to health promotion and disease prevention. Regional health authorities are taking the initial steps of conducting community health assessments and using them as a tool for strategic and operational planning.

As a province, we will also be using the findings of these assessments to help set the future directions and strategies for Manitoba Health. The shift to more appropriate services in our community is another very important direction. Recently the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) made announcements on our capital construction program. In the last two years alone, our government has committed nearly 900 new personal care home beds to our system. This capital construction, along with our additional support for home care, supportive housing and companion care will make a significant impact on responding to today's demands on our hospital system.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, through our commitments to increase funding in the face of federal transfer cuts, the enhancement of health services and the reorganization of our province's health services system, we have demonstrated our commitment to ensuring that Manitobans have access to the health services they require.

As we await further announcements in our budget for the coming year, members can anticipate further demonstration of this government's commitment to our health system. Manitobans can be confident that we are changing health care for the better. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

* (1720)

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, but only for a few short words. I must say that when it comes to health care, this province, Manitoba, is leading the way. All we have to do is look across the country at what is happening.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting when we talk about the five principles of medicare and universality and acceptability, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration.

We had a resolution back in 1993-94, moved by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), we accepted that. We accepted that as a Legislative Assembly. Manitoba realized the problem back in 1988-89, when we were first elected as the government to govern. The changes started then. You could not make the drastic turns that were required to happen because of the new technologies and the new realities of health care, but we saw what had to be done and the plan was put in place.

Madam Speaker, that plan is taking effect. We had a minister who saw and forecast where it was going. [interjection] Yes, we did have several ministers. We had Don Orchard, who was a very good Health minister. Maybe the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) would rather give this speech than I. I might like to hear from him after I have finished putting a few words on the record. I am glad the honourable member is helping me, but one thing we do not need is help from the NDP on how to correct the inequities within a health system. The inequities are there today because of what we received back in 1988.

Our Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) just made an announcement on the capital projects to the tune of $150 million. There is infrastructure being built across this province, and I think it is important that we stop–the honourable members, every time money is put into health care, they say it must be an election. Every time. Every time there is a positive change, they say there must be an election coming.

Madam Speaker, since I was elected in 1990, every announcement must have been then towards an election, because that is what we have been doing is putting in place corrective actions to correct the inequities that were there from the past. The honourable member for Flin Flon, I am sure he is very well aware–not Flin Flon, I am sorry, Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). You were close. Flin Flon is close. [interjection] I can see that, and I greatly appreciate this by the way. So you just stay there and just keep briefing me.

In my community I was on the board of the Victoria Hospital back in 1989. We saw where some of those inequities were, and we approached the government of the day. Don Orchard was the minister at the time, and Minister Orchard recognized some of the inequities within the system. We moved towards some of the new technologies. We brought in the first CAT scan within the Victoria. We brought in some of the new technologies for some of the new surgery, and we wanted to move towards day surgery, because we saw what that effect would have on the bed situation. We were able to expand from–Madam Speaker, the member for Brandon wants to speak to this as well I see. You might want to remind him that at about quarter to they can get up and speak to this motion. At the Victoria Hospital, as I was saying, we saw the need and we put in the request to the minister. When the minister forwarded us money for actions at the Victoria, those investments showed up multiple times in bed savings at our hospital.

Madam Speaker, the day surgery program alone, we were able to expand from 900 operations to over 2,000 and 3,000 operations, and those were beds that were saved throughout the hospital. In the birthing centre alone–and we called it the Victoria Hilton actually because of the system that we put in place. Mothers from across the city were coming to the Victoria to have our birthing centre, to see the new opportunities that we had brought at the Victoria.

* (1730)

Madam Speaker, the technologies that are expanding in health care are growing by the hour. Not by the year and not by the decade anymore but by the hour. As you look at these new technologies, you have to look at how you are investing–I am glad the honourable members think it is funny. You really do not believe in this, do you? You would go back to your old ways and just put the money in and hope it was spent right in the long run. When you look at how you invest the money, Madam Speaker, that is the important issue.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of our government's contributions in health care. Were there mistakes made in the past? Yes. Any government would make mistakes. Our government, I am sure, has made some, but we can correct those mistakes after they have been made. We can also look at the future and see where those needs are. Did we know what new technologies were coming? Maybe the NDP did. They might have looked in their crystal ball that they have hidden in their caucus room to see what was happening in the future, but some of the new technologies–[interjection]

The member goes to the frozen food issue. Why is it that they have this big thing about frozen food? Where did you think the hospitals were getting the food from in the first place? Where did you think our kitchens were ordering this food? Where were we getting our corn flakes from? Were we getting that in Manitoba? Well, we were serving that at the Victoria. Where were we getting our Quaker Oats from? We were ordering our Quaker Oats, and cooking it in the hospital. Well, guess what? It was coming from Toronto. Excuse me, but where are the vegetables coming from? They are coming right here, grown in Manitoba, Peak of the Market. That is what we have to have.

Madam Speaker, it is the NDP and their policies that make us have to get some of our foodstuffs and sustenance from the east. They believe in this Wheat Board who says that you cannot produce any of this product or create something from your product here in Manitoba. Where do they come from? Then they say go shop at home.

If we were allowed to create some of these products from our own wheat here in Manitoba, instead of having to ship our wheat to be ground in the east and then ship our bread back here so we can bake it–[interjection] Oh, and the member says he doubts it. Well, maybe he had better look into the policies.

Mr. C. Evans: My point of order is that this member was expounding how great the technology in the last couple of years has come about, and that his government has been undertaking to making sure that this fabulous technology has been put in place.

We commented on the frozen food, Madam Speaker. If this is the technology that he is talking about, then let him continue to talk about the technology that serves the people properly, and not frozen food.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, I found it very interesting because I am not quite sure the point the member is making. Of all the complaints that were received about food, over half of them were coming from the facilities with the old food systems, so we are not quite sure where the member is.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am also a little confused on the point of order, but what I think that the honourable member was trying to say is that the member should be relevant and should be speaking to the resolution before him. So I would remind the honourable member for St. Norbert to be relevant to the resolution that was moved.

Mr. Laurendeau: The honourable member is right. I was leading astray, and I think it was because I was biting on some of the bait that they were throwing this way. So, Madam Speaker, I will try and stay to the member's resolution that he brought forward.

Madam Speaker, as usual, all I see within this member's resolution is negativity. That reminds me of what the NDP is all about. When you critique something, it does not mean necessarily that you just criticize, but you should also come forward with a plan or a better plan. Not once have I seen that better plan being offered.

This government has, over the years, put forward a plan. This government has, over the years, worked on that plan, and this government will continue to work on that plan. We can, and we will in the future, succeed because of the leadership that we have within this party.

This party will lead health care into the future, not as some governments have done in the east and the west that are not of our same persuasion, Madam Speaker, but we will continue to make sure that health care is the No. 1 priority for this government and for this province because all Canadians look at health care as the priority for all governments.

Madam Speaker, when we talk about health care, we have to look at more than just health care within the hospitals but at how we work at preventing some of those diseases. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) brought forward a very good question today during Question Period when he was speaking about diabetes. He was asking the amount of dollars we put into that area, and he is right, in some cases, we should start working on the cause of those diseases. That is what this government is doing. Again, within the diabetes area, we have a plan to work toward correcting the food supplements and other areas that diabetics require so they do not become the third-level diabetic and need insulin and other levels of medication.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting when we look at the hospitals and we see the new technologies that are available. We have knee surgery being done that 15 years ago was not really at the same capacity as it is today. We are performing hip surgeries today in our hospitals that 15 years ago were not happening. They are going in with the new technologies in surgery now where an operation would put you down for seven, eight, nine days; today, you are in and out. It is two and a half hours and you are back home, and in some cases, you are back on the golf course.

The technologies are there, but it is important that you look at these technologies in the light of how we can best use them in the future. So we can have a vision that says we will throw money at the problem without looking at the results, but I think it is important that we see what the results are and not look through rose-coloured glasses, as some members in this House would want to do, or in the crystal ball and say it might work.

Madam Speaker, what we are doing for health care will work. What we are doing for health care is a plan. The plan is there and the will for this plan to succeed is there. We have the leadership, and the people of Manitoba will see that in the very near future. Thank you.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of speaking to this very excellent resolution that has been put forward by the member. I want to comment a little bit about some of the comments that have been forwarded by members opposite in regard to health care.

I noted that the comments of members opposite were the rote responses that have been circulated recently by their central spin control with respect to health care. I want to deal with that because it reminds me of an interview I had recently on the radio, which was the one question that I was waiting to be asked for some time as it relates to the inequities in the health care system. The radio interviewer said to me something similar to what the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) had said. He said to me, well, Mr. Chomiak, you and the NDP are always criticizing; have you ever done anything positive? I was waiting for that question, and I have been waiting for members opposite to again ask that question. [interjection]

I remind the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), who is sitting there, that in 1992, when the Minister of Health, Don Orchard, talked about improvements in the health care system, I said what about a central bed registry? It is recorded, Madam Speaker. We said why not a central bed registry? The minister said, great idea, and it has been announced every year since 1992, and we still do not have it.

* (1740)

Madam Speaker, when the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) talked about a two-year waiting list for bone density examinations in Brandon–a two-year waiting list–the minister stood up and said we are going to do something about it. We waited six months, and we waited eight months, and we waited nine months, and then there was a by-election in Portage. Lo and behold, during the by-election in Portage, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and several ministers were out to announce a grant of $83,000 to reduce bone densities from a two-year waiting list to zero. That was raised by the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans), and it took nine months for subsequent ministers of Health to put it in place. Then when the bone density list got up to two years again, I remind the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), when it got up to two years again and we stood up in this House and said do something about the bone density scanners, it took the government another year to put in place a program to reduce the waiting lists.

So, Madam Speaker, do not let me hear that members on this side do not have positive actions. When we raised in this House, when members of this House–17 stood up to talk about the intolerable situations with respect to waiting lists, and when we put in place a waiting list help line, only then–and I did a letter personally to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). That day the Minister of Health announced a program to reduce waiting lists. So do not tell us that members on this side of the House do not have positive suggestions.

In fact, we talked three years ago about earmarking funds for the CAT scans, for the MRIs, for the cancer tests and for bone density scanners, and we told the government, earmark funding for those programs. The government did not listen. We told the government, and they did listen, finally, three years later in the midst of an election. They came around and said now we have money. So do not tell me we do not make positive suggestions, Madam Speaker. If the government had listened to what we had said for the past five or six years, they would not be in the mess that they are in today with respect to health care. They know it, we know it, and the people of Manitoba know it.

Madam Speaker, two years ago, I sent a plan about foreign doctors to the Minister of Health, the previous, previous minister. I have yet to receive a reply. I have yet to receive a reply on a program that we put forward for improving conditions in rural Manitoba for doctors. So do not let them say that we do not have positive suggestions.

This afternoon, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) had a very good suggestion with respect to diabetes. We had two press conferences here in the Legislature with people suffering from diabetes where we asked the minister to come to the press conference, meet with the sufferers of diabetes, find out what problems they are having with their test strips, with their inoculations and with their difficulties, and do something about the problem.

Do you know what the minister said? He did come down–and I will give him credit. He said: my department made a mistake; we made a mistake in this area. I will give him credit for recognizing a mistake and doing something–[interjection] That is right. The minister says, as soon as I realized it, Madam Speaker, so do not let members opposite say we are only negative and we do not bring positive suggestions to this Chamber and to the health care system.

For five years, I have written to minister after minister after minister asking for coverage for Betaseron, and minister after minister after minister has come back and said we are studying it. Now, I will give the previous minister credit for putting in place a pilot program for Betaseron, but do not let members opposite say we do not make positive suggestions, Madam Speaker.

Now I will make another positive suggestion. Make the pilot program permanent so that those people who are on the pilot program do not have the uncertainty of not having their drugs and not having coverage. There is another positive suggestion and you can construe it negatively, Madam Speaker, but it is meant as a positive suggestion.

Let me talk about the frozen food. When the frozen food came, we went and said look at the alternatives that have been offered in a study. A study was forwarded to you by a chartered accounting firm, by a consulting firm, Madam Speaker, that had a very realistic option. We warned them, do not proceed on the plan that you are going on because you will have nothing but trouble. Now, that can be construed as negative, but that could also be construed as a very positive attempt on the part of an opposition to save the government from wasting $20 million and causing suffering to many individuals. They did not listen.

In 1995, when the government announced the greatest capital plan in the history of the province, we endorsed that plan. We said, yes, go ahead with the Health Sciences Centre; yes, go ahead with the cancer institute; yes, go ahead with those personal care homes. And we said at the same time, Madam Speaker, but because we are in an election, frankly–and I said it publicly–I do not believe the government will come through with those commitments.

You know what? Unfortunately, we were right. When they came in, they cancelled the program, used the federal government as an excuse, and why are we facing the difficulties with people lying in the hallways today? Because the government cancelled that program. So do not let it be said that we do not make positive suggestions, and do not let members go around saying that we only criticize. We told the government; we supported the government on that capital plan. They went and they got re-elected on that capital plan, and then they had the gall to cancel that plan and put the lives and the health of Manitobans in jeopardy, waiting and lying in hallways.

So do not let them leave the impression that this side is only negative. Heaven knows, we could be far more negative than we are. I have been told on many occasions personally that we should be bringing to this House patient after patient after patient and, you know, Madam Speaker, we do not do that here. We generally do not do that unless it is a very serious case. That has not been our style. We could, but we do not. We could be a lot more negative than we are.

When Holiday Haven was in trouble, I came and I stood up in this Chamber and I announced the problems–[interjection] I will get to that–and the minister stood up and said: No problem. He sent out the associate deputy minister to say: No problem. There was a report on the minister's desk that said that management should change. Did I say to the government: close it down? I said: change the management. I was very careful in what I did. [interjection] I will get to that.

I was very careful in the criticism I brought to this Chamber because I felt lives were at stake and we felt lives were at stake. We had long discussions in our caucus room about how we approach this issue, and we approached it very apolitically. When the gentleman was killed, I will give the minister credit. He immediately took over management.

An Honourable Member: I was only minister two or three weeks then.

Mr. Chomiak: I agree. You were just minister and you made a decisive move that was very necessary. But the point I am making is that we had raised that issue six months earlier. If the previous minister had acted, if the government had acted in good faith, then perhaps that gentleman would not have had to go through what he went through and the situation would have been improved a lot sooner.

I also got taught a lesson there personally, that I stopped trusting a lot of what happens in this Chamber because of what happened in that situation. I still to this day feel guilt that I should have been harsher. Perhaps, if I had been more vigorous, we would not have had to go through what we went through.

So do not let it be said that members on this side only criticize. Yes, we criticize, and we criticize a lot. But we have also tried to improve the situation in this province, and we are very proud of what we have done to stop the privatization of home care. We are very proud of what we have done to stop the ill effects of Connie Curran in this province. We are very proud of what we have done to raise the attention of Manitobans about the effect of frozen food and the ridiculous situation that is occurring with respect to frozen food in this jurisdiction. We are very proud about the issues we have done to raise awareness about waiting lists.

That brings me to the point about earmarking money for surgery. We also told the government: earmark money for surgery; increase the surgical times in the hospitals. That was a positive suggestion. Some of it has been taken. So do not let it be said that we only offer negative comments and criticism and we do not have a plan for what has to happen in this province. Do not let that be said. That is not true. And the member who put together this resolution today, it was an effort to point out that the situation in rural Manitoba is very, very difficult, and they have the same right to access to health care and need for health care as we do in the city of Winnipeg. They ought to have that right, and no one ought to be faced with a situation of going into a tertiary care facility with a very serious illness and not be offered care or sitting in a hallway for four or five days. That is not right.

That is one of the reasons why this government is suffering in the public's mind. They can say all that they want about all of the programs they are putting in place, about all of the money they are spending. They could have 10,000 $500,000 ad campaigns, and I do not think it will change the conception that the public has gathered.

After 11 years of Conservative mismanagement of health care, I think it is going to be very, very difficult for members opposite to convince the public that they have an idea, a vision, and that they know where they are going. I think that they have run out their string. The fiasco from 1995, which has resulted in the chaos in our health care system today, was the death knell, I think, to this government and its health care plans. If they had a $10-million ad campaign, I do not think they could convince the public fundamentally that they can improve the situation in health care. We hear it, and we see it day after day.

I think I will close, Madam Speaker, by indicating that members on this side of the House will continue to do their job. We will continue to criticize the government when warranted, and heaven knows, there is no lack of activity in that area. We will continue to raise positive suggestions. For example, 1995, when the Postl report came out, we said, one of the best reports on children's health and on health care that we have ever seen. We said to government: Why do you not implement the recommendations? In fact, we made some of those recommendations and additional other recommendations part of the core of our campaign. You know, we are still waiting for implementation. The member for, I believe–is it Charleswood or is it St. Charles?–Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) made reference to Children and Youth Secretariat. We have been waiting five years for most of those programs, and we are only now seeing them announced or put into place. If there was any kind of consistency behind it, we would have seen it four years ago.

* (1750)

With those comments, I would just like to say I support strongly the resolution of the member, and I urge members opposite to listen to what we say. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I did very much enjoy the comments of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) because there is a debate to be held in health care, a very serious debate. The member for Kildonan and I had the opportunity during my two years as minister to engage in that debate on a fairly regular basis. I will say this about the member for Kildonan: he comes to the position as critic with, I think, an understanding of many of the issues. He spends his time doing a great deal of research on them. I think we had a reasonable relationship as critic to minister.

Many of the things that he outlined today that were suggestions in our exchange, I think I pointed out the action that we certainly took when I was in charge of that portfolio and responded very quickly to things that were happening. But there are some things that he misses, Madam Speaker, in that analysis. They are missed in the day-to-day debates in this Chamber and, I would say, have been missed in the day-to-day reporting and coverage of the mass media in our province on many of the health issues.

That is, it is great to sit and talk about things that should happen in health care, about money being allocated for this program or that program that should be developed. But what has not been addressed fully in that discussion–and I know it is easy for members opposite to throw their comments in at this particular time, and to throw those kinds of comments–is a fundamental issue in health care that underlines whether there be a program or not. It is part of that reform and movement of change that is happening all across this country and has to happen, and to which I will say, Madam Speaker, I never felt we had any support from members opposite moving forward: that is, the fundamental change in the way that health care is administered and delivered in our country.

It is very easy to say that, yes, we need a program, this decision should be made, but do you know how health care has been, how the way we administer a fund and deliver health care has developed in this country? It is over 30 years of layering one system upon another of a private, charitable health care system, the beginnings of medicare in the '60s, the Canada Health Act, a greater and greater role for government as opposed to just being an insurer to where we became funder, to where the public expectation is that we are the administrators. Yet, within that system–[interjection] Just let me finish. Well, the member references the Canada Health. Yes, the great principle of public administration. That is right. We have accepted that.

What does that mean? Does that mean that government in provinces direct and operate health care? Well, Madam Speaker, I think that is what the public expects. Quite frankly, if our health care is going to survive, I believe that has to happen. The system, as it existed in Manitoba until regionalization and even with the existence of agreements and the survival of various boards in Winnipeg in our hospitals, have so many layers that were built in over 30 years that it makes it so difficult for decisions to be implemented that they bog down in a mess that is very, very frustrating to people who want to see the kind of programs that we talk about happen.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to this House that the most significant reform in health care in the history of public health care in this province was the creation of regional health authorities. The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) referenced the Holiday Haven situation. When that happened, I remember I was only a few weeks in the ministry. We had a death. As it turned out, the death was not related to the claims that many were making, but I remember saying to staff in the ministry: what are my options? What are my authorities?

And, you know, the only authority that we had in law was to remove their licence, which meant in January we had a hundred-and-some residents of that facility who you would have to move through the cold of winter to some other place because there would be no licence for that facility. Nowhere in the legislative authorities of this province, in 30-some years of developing medicare, in which the New Democratic Party was the government of this province for many of those years, did any Legislature provide for a number of mechanisms other than removing a licence.

What did we do? We brought in the legislation. It passed this House. I cannot recall whether it was supported by members opposite or not, but now ministers of Health have the authority to go in and take over those facilities if it is in the public good, if things are happening that need to happen. So that is exactly what the member for Kildonan and I agreed upon, that it was a matter of addressing the management there, that the legal authority for government to act would be in place. It did not, it did not. So in fairness to previous ministers of Health who have had to deal with those issues, the ability to go in and actually make change and deal in a manner that both the member for Kildonan and I agree was the right course of action did not exist.

So it is easy to sit there and say: why does the minister not go in and take over the management and bang the desk and demand it in front of the cameras? Anybody can do that, but when you sit in the desk of the minister, you have to act within the law. If you do not have the authorities, you do not have them until this Legislature gives them to you.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, in case after case, in dealing with decision making in health care, how frustrating it is to ministers of Health in this province and across this country in their inability to implement decisions that you and I, as members of this House, will agree are the right decisions. Because every one of those independent hospital boards that existed was looking at ways to protect their turf, to operate within their own system, to not give up anything to anyone. That rivalry still goes on today to some degree among some of the boards in the city of Winnipeg. It is changing, leaps and bounds.

Many of our rural regional health authorities where those boards evolved into the RHA, I know mine, the North Eastman Health Association, we are seeing a lot of things happen that are years overdue, in my opinion, and they are overdue because the mechanisms to make them happen did not exist.

Yet every time we have come to this Chamber to see those mechanisms created, my recollection is very rarely did we have the support of members opposite. We had their criticisms but not their support.

So when you are looking to see the changes in health care happen that must happen, programs develop that we must see. You also have to have the changes in the way we operate our system take place in order to facilitate that. That also means changes in the way we fund health care.

One of the great frustrations of Ministers of Health before regionalization was we gave budgets to hospitals, and we did not know where that money was spent. We discovered $2.5 million of taxpayers' money being used by the nine Winnipeg hospitals collectively to subsidize their public cafeterias. Did any member of this Legislative Assembly vote anywhere to make that decision to use health dollars to fund cafeteria food as opposed to being used for hip or knee replacements or cancer treatment? No, I do not think we could find–well, we may find some in the New Democratic Party because they would support their friends at UFCW. They would. But I do not think we could find a Liberal or Conservative member of this House, and there are probably some New Democrats, Madam Speaker, who would agree that that is not a good use of money.

But, you know, every year that money was wasted, hidden in the budgets of hospitals, taken out of programming for patients, and when the money was not there for the patients, the answer was: we did not get enough money from government. Nowhere did a hospital ever say: we are short because we had to subsidize our cafeteria. Now, Madam Speaker, that is an affront, not to any party, that is an affront to the elected members of this Legislature. And until those systems are fully changed, transparent and accountable, that the public, through their government and the public part of it can see where dollars are being spent, we are going to continue to have that problem.

Madam Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Praznik) will have seven minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).