Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I think if you would canvass the House, you should find leave to call for The Essential Services Amendment Act for second reading, after which I will then be announcing a standing committee for tomorrow morning to hear that bill. That is part of the arrangements that House leaders have discussed for the handling of this particular piece of legislation. The request I received from the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton), was to call a standing committee tomorrow morning to deal with it, for ten o'clock. I will be doing that following second reading, after which we will be going into Committee of Supply.

As well, Madam Speaker, there will be some other announcements with respect to standing committees that we are just in the process of confirming. So if you could please seek leave to call Bill 27.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to call second reading of Bill 27? [agreed]

* (1430)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I move (by leave), seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services essentiels), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the co-operation of the House on this very important issue today because today I am introducing an amendment to The Essential Services Act to include the ambulance services of the City of Winnipeg. The request to amend this act to include ambulance services was made by the City of Winnipeg.

The Essential Services Act, as members may recall, was introduced in 1996 in order to ensure that services essential to Manitobans could continue to be provided in the event of a withdrawal of services by government employees. The act was amended in 1997 to include health facilities and Child and Family Services agencies at the request of not only the health facilities but representatives of families, of residents of personal care homes, who were impacted by a 1996 personal care home strike.

As a result of the 1996 health sector strike, it was felt many Manitobans were placed in a vulnerable position because the union did not negotiate an essential service agreement with the personal care home employers that it was striking. The act at that time put into place a process for the parties themselves to attempt to conclude an essential service agreement voluntarily. But if an agreement could be reached, the provisions of the legislation which provides for a mandatory process where it is designating essential services applies. It is my understanding that the ambulance employees union and the City of Winnipeg have not agreed to an essential services agreement in the event of a strike of ambulance service employees.

I just want to read from the two letters that I received from the mayor of the City of Winnipeg. The first one was dated May 13, 1999, addressed to myself as Minister of Health re collective bargaining between the City of Winnipeg and the Emergency Response Services Employees Association of Winnipeg. It goes on to say: "Please be advised that the City's ambulance workers, represented by the Emergency Response Services Employees Association of Winnipeg, may be in a legal strike position following a strike vote to be taken on May 17, 1999. I am advised that these employees are not currently covered by The Essential Services Act and the city has concerns that, in the event of a strike, it will not be able to guarantee the provision of essential services with consequent risk to the population. Under the circumstances, I am requesting that the necessary steps be taken to amend the legislation to cover the provision of ambulance services by the City of Winnipeg. Yours truly, Glen Murray, Mayor."

Also, on May 18, I received a follow-up letter–that is today, Madam Speaker–again to myself from Mayor Glen Murray, the City of Winnipeg, again the same topic, the collective bargaining between the City of Winnipeg and the Emergency Response Services Employees Association. It goes on to say: "Please be advised that the City's ambulance workers voted to support strike action and are therefore in a legal strike position at this time. In the circumstances, I request that you initiate the necessary action to amend The Essentials Services Act to ensure that essential ambulance services provided by the City of Winnipeg are maintained. Please note that we have not been able to achieve a voluntary agreement on essential services with the Emergency Response Services Employees Association of Winnipeg union. Yours truly, Glen Murray, Mayor."

So, Madam Speaker, the intent of this amendment is to include ambulance services under the scope of the legislation to ensure that these services which are essential to the citizens of Winnipeg and the people of Manitoba are not placed in jeopardy as a result of a strike. This bill adds the City of Winnipeg ambulance services to the definition of employer under the act to ensure that these services also fall within its scope.

So, Madam Speaker, again, I thank members for their co-operation today on this issue, and I encourage everybody in this House to support this very important piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): In addressing the bill, I would point out, Madam Speaker, that on the one hand we have received very short notice on this bill, and, on the other hand, we recognize the public interest that must be dealt with.

I am just going to speak for a moment because I am trying to deal with the merit of the issue before us, because we have already agreed to giving leave at first reading, obviously, and second reading and to proceed with the debate with an understanding on the committee timing, as well. This, of course, is important.

There are two principles that we have to deal with in this Legislature that are enshrined in our laws and in our traditions. One is the principle of providing medical services to our citizens. Citizens who need access to medical services in our view is a very, very important principle that this Legislature must deal with. The other important principle is the issue of free collective bargaining as part of a free society. Therefore the issue is very much a dispute between a medical service provided to the public and the way in which that medical service is being dealt with in a dispute. It is very important that we achieve a balance between those two principles and are able to achieve both principles with the solutions we put forward in this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, we therefore respectfully believe that the public interest and balance can be better achieved by an alternative that we will be proposing at committee in the form of allowing The Fire persons Arbitration Act–let me quote the exact act, The Fire Departments Arbitration Act, I am sorry–to be utilized for purposes of the dispute.

First of all, I believe there is an occupational correlation between the ambulance attendants and drivers and the firefighters. In fact, sometimes they perform very similar duties in their roles and their functions that they fulfil to the city of Winnipeg.

Madam Speaker, the minister is quoting from the letters from the mayor. The mayor is the head of a government. He is also responsible for management. There is a balance to resolving disputes between the public interest, which is paramount, the workers and management. That is why in the past, to resolve similar disputes, this Legislature under The Labour Relations Act has provided for an arbitration system that is binding on the parties, hopefully not to be used but rather as a way in which the parties will agree at the collective bargaining table to a solution that will allow us to ensure that services are provided to the public.

Our solution, Madam Speaker, actually guarantees more of the workers will be providing services to the public than the kind of vague notions contained within The Essential Services Act. The proposal that we are putting forward as an alternative, The Fire Departments Arbitration Act, is also a system we used for police officers and school teachers here in Manitoba. I would suggest very strongly to the minister, the advantage of this proposal that we are making is obviously better for the public and more balanced between the workers and management. Why is it more balanced? Because The Essential Services Act of Manitoba does not provide a remedy. It does not provide a way of resolving a dispute. It only provides the definitions of who is covered and who is not.

You know, this government before, a couple of years ago, when former Mayor Thompson requested that a former collective agreement be overturned–and I think many councillors disagreed, including Councillors Vandal and Murray, at the time–this Legislature said no, we are not going to break that balance by overturning a collective agreement negotiated under The Labour Relations Act, even though they did so for their own employees.

So we think our solution: Does it meet the test of providing medical services to the public? Yes. Does it meet the test of allowing the city government to maintain the services to the public? Yes. Does it allow a way in which the ambulance employees can get an arbitrated and fair settlement? Yes. Has it been tried and true in the province of Manitoba over decades of experience? Yes. So we suggest to the minister opposite that this Legislature is co-operating in a serious situation, but–Madam Speaker, I am closing now–I just wanted the minister to hear my arguments. You know, I think that just because the city requests something, and I know the member opposite was a former deputy mayor–sometimes this Legislature can hear what the city is saying but also use their own experience to apply a more balanced solution. We have to, in this province, represent the public interests, the management interests, and the workers' interests, and we suggest The Fire Departments Arbitration Act will do all three in the most reasonable way.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and we would ask the minister to pay attention to that proposal and give it some attention here in Manitoba. Thank you.

* (1440)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Yes, I will just say a few words because I do not want to delay this proceeding to committee, but it is a bill and an issue that I have interest in. I was on the Winnipeg police force when we still had the right to strike, and I remember my concern about going to strike in one year. I remember walking over from the Concert Hall to the chamber of City Council and singing Solidarity Forever. I cannot believe I actually did that, but I did.

But I remember that at that time when the Winnipeg Police Service bargained to give up its right to strike, and this was something that both the union and the employer wanted, and I believe, and people who have longer memories and longer history here, that the firefighters, their union and the city wanted binding arbitration.

I think what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has suggested here is that we tell them they want binding arbitration. It think that is a little bit different. I have heard a request from the mayor for essential services. I have not heard anything from the union. I have not received any-[interjection] well, the Leader of the Opposition says he has heard from the union. That is no surprise to me. That is no surprise. I read Bernard Christophe's union magazine, and I guess the new NDP still has strong ties to the union movement here in Manitoba.

But I am concerned–and I understand that under second reading we are supposed to be talking about the broad principles of the bill–that if the official opposition is bringing forth an amendment on binding arbitration when this Legislature has not been asked to do that, as opposed to how it came about in the police service and the fire service, maybe it will not be as strong. The other thing is that I find it confusing that when the Nurses' Union were offered binding arbitration, I did not hear the NDP encouraging the nurses to accept binding arbitration, so I find an inconsistency in their position. Now they are telling the ambulance attendants that they should take binding arbitration, but I did not hear them telling the nurses to take binding arbitration when they were offered that in the last contract.

Yes, I think it is very important. I remember the one time when the Winnipeg Police Service took a strike vote, and it looked as if we were going on strike. I was fully prepared to cross the picket line because I said no person in Winnipeg was going to be put at risk because my wallet was not thick enough. I said I would go on strike on principle, for example, to not allow one-person cruiser cars that I believe would put the citizens and the police officer at risk. The same here, I do not think any ambulance attendant should be putting the citizens of Winnipeg at risk because their pocketbook is not full.

So I agree that we need something to keep the ambulance attendants on the street, but we have to do it in a fair way. I would like to hear from them in committee, whether they want binding arbitration, and possibly we will, but no one in Winnipeg should be put at jeopardy because someone's wallet is not thick enough. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I, first of all, want to thank the government House leader (Mr. Praznik) for contacting me this morning on this matter. I appreciate the approach taken by the government House leader because it certainly was crucial in giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter and come up with the agreement that we have to deal with this matter today and go into committee tomorrow morning.

I want to put on the record, too, that the government House leader (Mr. Praznik) was the first one to make us aware of this. I think, also, the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) made our Health critic aware of this. I do wish that the City of Winnipeg had, perhaps, given us some notice of this in advance because that might have assisted in what we are essentially looking at here, which is looking at dealing with the current situation, and a fairly significant request.

I do note that the city does make other requests for legislative action, which the government does not always agree with, and we are in the position now, as legislators, with an impending strike. There is no set time for the strike, but we have a potential strike. We are now sort of having to scramble somewhat, given the circumstances.

I think it might have assisted greatly if the city had made us and the opposition–and I assume the Liberal Party was not aware of this either–they had perhaps officially made us aware of their request because the letter that I received–I received two letters, pardon me, today. One was dated May 13. I want to put that on the record, but I would note to the city that when it comes to requests such as this, it requires the co-operation, if not necessarily agreement, but certainly requires the co-operation of all three parties in the House. I would suggest to the city that the next time that, if they have any suggestions, they perhaps do that.

That being the case, I also want to stress again that we are pleased the minister has agreed to hold the committee hearings tomorrow. We wanted to have some time to consider this bill and some time to develop the alternative we are proposing. I want to point out, by the way, that we–and I know there was some reaction from at least one of the members when we indicated we had contacted the union. We contacted the union and the city. We contacted both parties to this dispute. I believe that was the appropriate thing to do, even though we were not informed of it. That was essentially to try to obtain a balanced picture of what has happened.

I want to stress that that is an important principle, Madam Speaker, and something that we in the New Democratic Party feel strong about. We are dealing with, as our Leader pointed out, both health care, something that we are very strongly committed to, and also the collective bargaining process, something we are very strongly committed to. I think at times what is required is assurance that one does consult widely, and then, obviously, as members of the Legislature and as parties in this House, we have to make decisions. We have to decide, obviously, the right balance of, in some cases, potentially conflicting principles.

What we propose, we believe actually is in keeping with both principles. Our proposal would ensure the continuation of ambulance services, period. I do know, by the way, that this approach that we are looking at, we did raise this, I know–certainly, the union will speak for itself tomorrow. We have raised it with both sides. We feel this is the appropriate way to proceed.

I want to point out the difference of what we are dealing with. If we simply pass the amendment that the government is looking at, what we will essentially do, I believe, is make it far more likely that there will be a fairly immediate strike situation. On the one hand, you will have the essential services portion in place; you have a 94 percent strike mandate from the union, and I know that only from what I have read in the paper. You obviously have a major disagreement between the two parties.

I believe the issue was the parity of treating ambulance workers the same way as firefighters and not trying in any way, shape, or form of getting into who is right or who is wrong, because in the collective bargaining process, that is not the point.

The collective bargaining process is about keeping people talking, trying to keep a process moving towards resolution. I would suggest that our proposal is superior to the only other proposal we have before us. I appreciate what the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) was saying but, you know, essentially we have been asked by the city, and it has been agreed to by the government, to deal with either Essential Services Act or no Essential Services Act amendment.

We feel that would not be in the best interests of any of the parties involved. That is why we are trying to come up with an alternative proposal. I know opposition parties often are criticized for putting forward proposals that are–that we do not put forward proposals. In this case I recognize again, just to reflect on what the member for The Maples is saying, we do not know quite frankly what the reaction of both sides will be in this, but we do not have much choice other than move it now.

We have been asked to give leave, that it is a pending strike. It is either The Essential Services amendment proposed by the government or this alternative. That is one of the reasons there has not been this other buildup.

I would actually encourage both sides to the dispute to look at our proposed amendment. We will be preparing it for tomorrow. I would encourage them publicly to look at that, because we believe this is one possible solution, as I said, not only to the dispute itself, but possibly a way of avoiding a potential strike situation, which will be very difficult for all parties involved and certainly the public. I want to put that on notice that that is the crucial thing that we want to see.

* (1450)

I also want to note, Madam Speaker, that I do believe it is important for the government as well to perhaps encourage this discussion, because I think, to a certain extent, as I pointed out, there is some inconsistency here. The government on this issue is just saying, yes, we will do what the city wants, but on many other issues completely refusing to do what the city has asked for, including, by the way, and rightly so, the request from the city under the previous mayor to roll back the contract. That was not appropriate. That would have been abuse of the legislative authority of this Chamber. I would suggest, in this particular case, that this is not the best way of proceeding.

I realized the city was attempting to negotiate, as was the union, an essential services agreement, and that did not happen. But to ask, on the eve of a strike mandate, a pending strike, for us to deal in the Legislature with a process that normally takes some time I think is an indication that there has been a lack of perhaps some forward thinking somewhere along the way with some of the parties involved, particularly, in this case, perhaps the city itself.

That being said, we obviously are dealing with a request. Our view was at least to, not indicating that we necessarily are going to support this bill, but we felt it was appropriate to deal with it today and deal with it forthwith and deal with our alternative.

I want to just finish, Madam Speaker, because I think this is an example of where it is important I think to have an understanding of all sides of the picture. I know our Labour critic will be talking about this in a moment but, you know, I really think this is the very situation. I just want to put on the record that it is interesting because, on the one hand, we are accused of being the friends of unions, and obviously we are proud of our connection with the labour movement, and of course Glen Murray certainly is well known to members of the New Democratic Party.

So here is a classic example where we are probably in a better position than anyone to try and think out ways in which not only the individuals but all parties in this dispute can be satisfied, because I want to stress again that we are not just concerned that the city and the ambulance drivers reach an agreement, we are concerned obviously about patients and medicare. So in a lot of ways what you need is a balanced approach, a creative approach.

I want to put on the record, by the way, that one of the sad comments here is that this government took out one of the provisions a number of years ago that did provide an alternative, final offer selection, supported, by the way–the member for The Maples, it is before his time–the Liberals. We fought and we did get it delayed somewhat, but we have often argued that we believe strongly in free collective bargaining. We also believe in the right of workers particularly to find alternate solution mechanisms. The police, the firefighters, the teachers have gone that route, and it has worked relatively well.

By the way, nothing takes away from the collective bargaining provisions that take place. Collective bargaining is quite strongly undertaken in all those particular circumstances. The bottom line is that it does not mean you cannot have collective bargaining and potential alternatives to strikes. In this particular case, we have proposed an alternative resolution mechanism. It is consistent, quite frankly–and I would say this publicly to all parties involved. We would suggest that there is certainly, and we are not getting into salary disputes, is an equivalence here between firefighters, as we see them, and ambulance drivers. We believe it makes no sense to treat firefighters and ambulance drivers differently under different acts and in different ways, Madam Speaker. That is why we want this debate, and in committee tomorrow we will be moving an amendment that would specifically bring the ambulance drivers under the same provisions that firefighters are currently under.

We believe it is the best solution, Madam Speaker, and we would strongly urge not only the government to consider this, but the city, the ambulance drivers and other members of the public. We look forward to their presentation tomorrow, and we hope over the next 24 hours there will be some open-mindedness here and that we can come up with a creative solution to what potentially could be very difficult circumstances for everyone involved and particularly for the public of Manitoba.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to rise to add my comments on Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act, which the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) tabled in this Chamber just before Question Period today.

Madam Speaker, I think we need to go back a short period of time ago, back when The Essential Services Act came into being in this province and the debate that was taking place at that particular time. I can remember in a committee of this Legislature one evening when I think we were debating Bill 26 which was an amendment to The Labour Relations Act in this province, the Manitoba Health Authority came before committee and told the then Minister of Labour, who is now Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that the government should consider implementing an essential services act in this province that would take away, in effect, the right of employees of this province, who at that time had the right to strike, deeming them as part of the essential services of our province.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Labour at that time then took that understanding, and I know he asked several questions at that time, took it back to his cabinet and caucus, and what do we have the next session? We had the essential services bill tabled before this Legislature, which essentially took away the rights of members of the public who work in the health care field, in particular, but a variety of areas within the health care sector, took away their ability to exercise their rights under the free collective bargaining process that we accept in this province.

So we knew at that time that the minister, who is now Minister of Justice, said that there was a better way that he had to look at dealing with lockout or strike situations that would protect, he said, the life and limb and never gave any consideration, which was surprising to me at the time, to the process that was currently in place under The Labour Relations Act in this province that would allow for binding arbitration, and any minister, any person in this Legislature, I would hope, would know that The Labour Relations Act does provide for the process of binding arbitration, should the minister deem it in the best interests of the public. So, Madam Speaker, we think that at this time the government could have chosen to utilize that particular process.

I go back to the comments that were made by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) here a few moments ago when he talked about whether or not the union, in this case representing the paramedics in the city of Winnipeg here, wants indeed to have binding arbitration as part of the process. Well, I can tell the member for The Maples and his colleague that all it would take would be to pick up the phone and ask members of that particular union and perhaps some of the city councillors whether or not those two parties had talked about binding arbitration. I can tell the members that, yes, I picked up the phone, I talked to those people, and they did tell me that binding arbitration was a recommendation before those negotiations and that it was the City of Winnipeg, in fact, that rejected that particular proposal. So, Madam Speaker, that binding arbitration process was on the table, and it was the city that rejected the binding arbitration process.

Yet to the members, all I suggest to you is that all you have to do is pick up the phone and ask them if they want the binding arbitration process as a part of a creative solution to the problem that we have facing us today. I think it is a workable solution. I think that it will allow for some resolution of the issues that are in dispute between the two parties, and I do not mean to get involved in the middle of that particular dispute. I do not think it is appropriate for me, in my place here today, to be involved in the actual negotiations which should be done at the negotiating table.

I would expect, though, that there would be some fair play and resolution of this matter and that there would be an opportunity to have the parties come to some kind of an arrangement with respect to this problem that is facing both of them.

I know if you look at The Fire Departments Arbitration Act that we have currently on the books in the province here, that we believe, as my Leader has already said, that this is one way to implement the binding arbitration process here in the City of Winnipeg, that will, we believe, solve the problems that the government has been asked to address by the City of Winnipeg.

Now, I look back to the various problems that the City of Winnipeg has encountered in past. They have made suggestions to this government to take certain legislative steps. I know my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) referenced the City of Winnipeg and Mayor Thompson wanting to legislate away a collective agreement that was in force at the time with the civic employees.

The government at that time, rightly so, said, no, that they were not going to take that step. We think that the government, when you get a request from a municipality in the province, including the City of Winnipeg, you have to look at it in the clear light of day and recognize the courses of action that are available to you, not just jump at a solution that you deem to be the quickest and most expedient to solve the problem, but to look at one that will actually resolve the problem that is outstanding.

* (1500)

What you are doing here today is just saying to the people who are in a legal strike position right now, we are taking away your right. There is no solution, no remedy to the problem that is out there with respect to the negotiations that are ongoing. All this is going to do is cause it to fester and boil over and not cause–what we want to see is a solution to the problem so that the public is not affected, so that the essential health care services that are provided by the paramedics in our province are continued and that the patients and the people of Winnipeg are not put at risk by the withdrawal of those services. We see binding arbitration as a solution to that.

In this legislation, The Fire Departments Arbitration Act, it is my understanding that there would be notice given by either of the parties and, having read through this legislation, that notice would have to be given by October 1 prior to the contract expiring. In that sense, where there would be no agreement by either of the parties, either of the parties could then by December 31 of that year, three months later, apply in writing to the minister and then the minister would be in a position to appoint an arbitration board.

Now, we know that this legislation would require about five minor amendments to The Fire Departments Arbitration Act to amend the clauses in there with strict reference to firefighters or firemen, which seems to me not to be gender specific, but you would think that they would have rectified that in the past, but we will leave that one aside for now. In this case, perhaps that would be an amendment you could make at the same time, make it nongender specific and also reference paramedics.

Now, it is interesting to note that the City of Winnipeg, through their actions on the City Council just recently, blended the two departments, the ambulance services in the City of Winnipeg with the fire services department.

Well, I am not in a position to pass judgment on whether that is a good or bad thing. I leave that to them. They are another level of government providing that service. I am not going to second-guess the reasons because I do not have all of the facts for the reasons those decisions were made, but I do know that if you are going to blend those two departments together, it would seem reasonable to put them under the same act, legislation, deeming that to be where the binding arbitration would take effect.

I would expect that they would have considered that, but I know that since it was on the table and the city rejected it, and I am not sure why they rejected it, but I do know, my understanding is that the councillors rejected it. The union had put it on the table for binding arbitration, and my understanding is that the council rejected it.

Now, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) can perhaps do like members on this side did and call the city councillors and call the union members to find out their points of view or perhaps when they come to committee tomorrow morning, ask them questions with respect to binding arbitration. But we see that this is a reasonable way to settle the differences that the two parties might have.

Now, we know that there are other essential services that are in this province, not only health care, but we have our police force in the province here, and I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) referenced that a few moments ago. We also have our teachers who are prevented from striking in the province of Manitoba under The Labour Relations Act, and there has been some talk by teachers in this province about going back to some limited right to withdraw their services in this province. This government has chosen not to follow that course of action, and I would think that this government would see that that would be a fair and equitable way of solving this dispute that we have between the ambulance services, the paramedics in the city of Winnipeg, and the City of Winnipeg civic government.

I think what we need to do is we cannot always just give carte blanche approval to any request that comes before us, and having read through the two letters that were sent by the City of Winnipeg, signed by Mayor Glen Murray, one dated May 13, relating to collective bargaining between the City of Winnipeg and the Emergency Response Services Employees Association, and another letter addressed May 18 to the Minister of Health, both of them to the Minister of Health, asking the province to enact essential services legislation to limit or take away the ability of the employees in this case, their ability to take free collective bargaining action, we think that is the wrong way to go and it would be better served if we had gone to binding arbitration.

I think what we as legislators need to do, we need to give reasoned consideration to the request that has come from the City of Winnipeg from the mayor and council members. I imagine the mayor has council support for this, but we need to give reasoned consideration to that request and to choose the most appropriate course of action that is fair not only to the City of Winnipeg Council but also to the employees who are involved on the other side of this particular dispute.

We should not just accept at face value, as the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) appeared-and I do not want to put words in his mouth, but appeared to do when he accepted at face value the request coming from the mayor and council. We think that there is a better way to resolve this dispute through the binding arbitration process, and we suggest to members of this House that the government look at that option very seriously. It is our understanding that when it goes to committee tomorrow, we will be talking to any members of the public who wish to come out and make a presentation to the committee, that those so wishing, we will ask them about options that are available and why they would not have considered those options, perhaps proposing our solutions as well, where we can find a reasonable solution to the problem that is outstanding, and that is through the binding arbitration process.

So with those few words, Madam Speaker, we recognize that it is important to protect the life and limb of vulnerable Manitobans who may require in emergency situations the services of the Winnipeg ambulance service and the employees who provide that service, but we also recognize, too, that there are principles that are involved in this process where we can bring about a reasonable and fair and equitable solution to the problem, not through the imposition of The Essential Services Act but through the binding arbitration process that would allow for a resolution of this problem

Madam Speaker, we look forward to this bill going through to committee tomorrow morning and to having a further debate on this particular piece of legislation, Bill 27. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, just wanted to put a few words on the record on this bill. In the past, I have had the opportunity to speak on the essential services legislation and would in part at least draw a partial conclusion in the sense of why it is that at different times we have to look at bringing in changes that are necessary to essential services legislation. I would think there would be enough expertise and bureaucrats who would have the know-how to talk about the different types of services that the public needs to see put into place, so that we are not doing it in an ad hoc way.

In this particular case, maybe it is as simple as the City of Winnipeg approaching, when we had the legislation previously, indicating here is the type of services that we would like to see brought into Essential Services and the provincial government itself saying here are the types of services that we believe needs to be brought into Essential Services.

The reason why I say that is because ultimately to bring it up while in the midst of a labour crisis in any sector kind of, I think, does a disservice, that ideally the time to do it is, in fact, well in advance of having to settle some of these labour negotiations that are out there.

But having said that, Madam Speaker, one has to look in terms of what is being requested of the government of the day. I was intrigued by the comments made by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). We, too, have placed a call in trying to get more information on this bill because, like the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), we received information today also on it.

I guess there is always political discretion that has to be used at the different levels of government, but one of the things that I think should be respected is that if you are trying to get things through the provincial Legislative Chamber, as a courtesy, opposition parties or all members should be notified as early as possible so that we can carry out, to the best of our abilities, our responsibilities in terms of being able to do the homework that is necessary.

The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) brought up, I thought, an excellent point when he made reference to the fact that the police and the fire departments respectively came to the conclusions within the negotiations to have binding arbitration. Well, it would appear that binding arbitration was something that was not agreed upon between the city and the ambulance workers. If that is, in fact, the case–and I was a bit confused by the earlier comments from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)–that there was no agreement, I think then we have to look at what our responsibility is as legislators.

* (1510)

I think it should be very clear, and made very clear, that the first priority is people who are going to be receiving that service. What we should be doing is accommodating what is in the best interests of the users, the patients, the Winnipegger or the Manitoban who needs this service. That was the argument when we brought in the essential services legislation that these are the people who have to be at the top of our mind in making sure that the services that have to be there are going to be there in some way and to not jeopardize the lives of Manitobans. We take that responsibility very seriously. That is the reason why we would like to see this bill ultimately go to committee.

We agree with the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) and the government House leader (Mr. Praznik) in terms of having the committee meeting for tomorrow as opposed to today because of notifications and potential of presentations. It will be interesting to see what, if any, presentations to the binding arbitration argument or potential amendment are going to be brought forward. I would think that, if you have both sides agreeing that binding arbitration is what they would like to see, then I think it would be a responsible thing for us as a committee then to look at passing an amendment of that nature. But if we do not see that consensus coming from the city, I think then there is a responsibility for us to look at The Essential Services as being the answer to resolving this particular issue.

I myself in the past have argued for binding arbitration. I can recall when we had the emergency strike with our doctors. In some cases, in some areas, I think that we need to fight for binding arbitration, but it is not necessarily the answer to everything. We had our largest labour dispute, potential dispute, with respect to our nurses. I had understood that in fact they were offered binding arbitration. In this particular case, you have the union that saw fit that it was not necessary to have binding arbitration, and it worked out well. It worked out well in the sense that we ended up getting Wally Fox-Decent.

I am an optimist. I hope that the union and the city will, in fact, be able to address the many different issues that are on the table, but, failing that, we have to do what our responsibilities are. At the very least we have got, and I have seen both letters from Mayor Glen Murray and respect the fact as the mayor, at least in part, the assumption is that this is in fact what the City of Winnipeg, City Council wants to see happen.

We look forward to seeing what sort of representation is made at the committee level. It will indeed be interesting to see ultimately on the whole issue of binding arbitration what sort of representations will be made on binding arbitration, because if in fact, as I say, there is a consensus towards moving in that direction, I would be inclined to suggest to him that that is by far the way to go, but we have to hopefully see that consensus.

With those few words, we are quite prepared to see this bill go into committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services essentiels. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a couple of announcements. I would actually call today the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to meet tomorrow at 10 a.m. in a committee room assigned by the Clerk. A notice will go out to members of that committee. I understand that there will be some committee changes by both Whips that will follow my motions.

I would also announce today that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Tuesday, I believe it is the 25th of May, 1999, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Workers Compensation Board's 1996 and 1997 five-year operating plan; the Annual Reports of the Workers Compensation Board for the years ending December 31, 1996, '97, and '98; and the December 31, 1996, '97, and '98 reports of the Appeal Commission of the Workers Compensation Board.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet tomorrow, May 19, 10 a.m., in a room to be announced by the Clerk's office. The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet Tuesday next, May 25, 10 a.m., Room 255, to consider matters relating to the Workers Compensation Board.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Law Amendments is being called for the purposes of considering The Essential Services Amendment Act, which received second reading this afternoon.

Madam Speaker: Bill 27 will be considered tomorrow morning in the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I believe the Whips have committee changes, and then I will be moving a motion to move into Committee of Supply.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews); the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed); and the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger).

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Wednesday, May 19, 1999, at 10 a.m., be amended as follows: Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar); Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway); Transcona (Mr. Reid) for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Most Gracious Majesty.