Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of things. First of all, it is our intention to call Bill 27 for third reading, The Essential Services Amendment Act. Should that be completed, I would then be asking the House to go into Committee of Supply to continue with Estimates.

I would ask, as well, if there is a willingness of the House to waive private members' hour for today on the understanding, of course, we will be using the Thursday morning sitting for private members' hour.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No? No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I ask then if you would call Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act, for third reading, and if that is completed, then I would ask if you could then call for the motion for Supply.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services essentiels), be now read a third time and passed.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on Bill 27 third reading, the government's attempt to legislate the paramedics situation here in Winnipeg. I do note, listening to several of the presenters when this bill was before committee, that many of the presenters drew to the government's attention that there were shortcomings with the government's intent to implement or to put paramedics under The Essential Services Act.

Even though the government indicates that this was not an attempt to influence the negotiations between the paramedics and the City of Winnipeg, I see it as a direct interference in that process. It is interesting to note too that, while the Minister of Health says in his comments about report stage of this bill, he only had a very short period of time. He did have several days that this House was sitting, and he waited until we were in the very day that the potential election call was going to be made. Despite his attempt here to say that that is not the case, he did have the opportunity the day before that to table the bill. You chose not to do it. [interjection]

An Honourable Member: You met with them the week before. Daryl is right; you are wrong.

Mr. Reid: I know. I know when the minister met, Madam Speaker. I know when the minister was involved. We saw in the letters that the minister has received. We have copies of those letters. We know that you had a number of days to table that piece of legislation and that you chose not to do that and that you wanted to go ahead with tabling this on the day the election was going to be called. I am not sure what your motive was with respect to this, but obviously you backed off from that election call. I guess there are reasons that you have, and I guess the other question I have in mind here is with respect to the issue. I mean, when we were dealing with the essential services Bill 17 here a couple of years ago, it is interesting to note that it was the Minister of Labour that tabled that piece of legislation. Yet we have the Minister of Health now tabling an amendment to that same act, and I have to wonder about whether or not there is a motive with respect to the Minister of Health tabling this amendment to The Essential Services Act versus the more appropriate area that the Minister of Labour would normally be responsible for such a piece of legislation.

So I am not sure why the Minister of Health would deal with that, except that perhaps he wanted to pit one group against another and to try and make his government look good with respect to health-related issues. It is interesting to note too that, while we have a number of jurisdictions in the province of Manitoba that have binding arbitration, this government has chosen to ignore our efforts to bring in binding legislation as a dispute-settling mechanism dealing with the paramedics and the City of Winnipeg, and the government has left it to their own devices. While they have interfered directly in the process of negotiations by bringing this essential services legislation amendment before us, they have not put forward a mechanism to allow for negotiations to proceed smoothly and to bring about a peaceful or satisfactory resolution for both parties that are involved.

We do note that the government has, as of Thursday, appointed a mediator, Mr. Teskey, to be involved in these matters. I believe that the parties had asked for Mr. Wally Fox-Decent, but of course his schedule is quite full in dealing with other negotiation matters and that the government has, after consulting with the City of Winnipeg–even though they had the request from the paramedics, chose to consult with the city before appointing Mr. Teskey–and now Mr. Teskey is working with the two parties to try and resolve the contractual impasse that had been lingering for some time.

It is interesting to note, too, that we have in place in this province binding arbitration for a number of other services, critical services in our province more directly dealing with the firefighters. The Fire Departments Arbitration Act has been in place for some time. It does need amendment. I guess we will have to wait to see what the government does with respect to the bill that we have before this House, dealing with that particular piece of legislation, because it is not in keeping with the times. It has not moved into the 1990s with respect to nongender-specific language, and it has not dealt with the binding arbitration issue for firefighters. It would include paramedics, as we would propose and have proposed in this House through the committee and for report stage of this bill. We have binding arbitration for the firefighters of this province which keeps those crucial services available to the residents of Winnipeg and for other communities where they have full-time firefighting forces.

It is interesting to note we have binding arbitration for the police force, and we would not want to see an interruption of those services. We saw in the newspaper just again today of problems with the delivery of service and how residents are quite distressed at the inability of some of the police services to respond in what the residents term to be an appropriate, timely fashion. If police were not covered under the binding arbitration process, then of course there is some potential for them to have an interruption of their services to the residents of Winnipeg. We would not want to see that take place, and that is why we have the binding arbitration process in place for the police as well as the firefighters.

It is interesting to note too that the government, while they did interfere in the collective bargaining process and involved themselves very directly–by the way, I believe it was Bill 72 back in the earlier 1990s, where they rolled back teachers' wages and benefits, that the teachers themselves are still covered by binding arbitration in this process. Governments of all political stripe recognize the importance of teachers being in the classroom and not on the picket line, so therefore they have binding arbitration as a means of resolving any contractual disagreements or issues that are in dispute. We think that has worked reasonably well for quite a number of years now. It has worked well for the firefighters, it has worked well for the police and it has worked well for the teachers.

We do know the government is involved in, I believe, binding arbitration with the doctors of this province. So you do recognize that medical services are crucial and that you are trying to resolve the contractual arrangements between the doctors and their negotiating representatives and the provincial government, and we recognize that binding arbitration can play a role in that process.

* (1440)

I guess the question remains: if you can have binding arbitration for those four groups, why is it that you cannot have binding arbitration for the paramedics who provide emergency lifesaving services right into our very living rooms when we call or dial 911 and the paramedics respond to those calls?

We do know that the paramedics are there working alongside of the firefighting force in this city. When the firefighters are called for fire suppression where there are buildings involved, the paramedics are there on standby in case someone becomes injured, whether it be a firefighter or a member of the public who would unfortunately be involved in sustaining any injuries as a result of the fire. So the paramedics work alongside of the firefighters, and yet the paramedics are treated differently than the firefighters when it comes to the contractual arrangements. The firefighters have binding arbitration, and yet the paramedics do not, in this government's estimation, deserve or warrant to have binding arbitration to resolve those disputes.

It is interesting to note, when we listen to the comments that were made in Question Period here today, when the question was raised by my Leader the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) dealing with the government's use of stretcher car services to move what would be termed more emergency type of cases, why the government would have stretcher car services to undertake to move those patients between facilities. Now, I guess you could look at the options the government has available, and perhaps this is a way of the government to send a message through their health authority, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, to the ambulance paramedics, that stretcher cars will be used as a means of contracting out the services of the work normally done by the ambulance staff, the paramedics in the city of Winnipeg here. That would be the only way that I could see the government would want to have this, is if their intent was to undermine or to contract out those particular services.

Now, I can tell the minister that it would not be, to the people of the community that I represent, in the best public interest to have stretcher car services moving emergency cases between hospital facilities. It is my understanding that these stretcher car services do not have the skilled or the trained people like we would have in our ambulances, and that, should any problems be encountered during the transport of that patient, the patient could be put at risk. I am sure that the families and the patients themselves would not want to have their family members or themselves placed at risk by a stretcher car providing those transportation services when an ambulance would be more appropriate to move patients between facilities where we have critical or crucial cases that would require treatment in other hospital facilities.

I listened to the comments that were made during the public presentations by the members that came before committee. I remember thinking back to Mr. Shoemaker in his presentation, responding to questions that were posed by members of the committee, when he said that under The Essential Services Act, it was the intention of the City of Winnipeg not to have all ambulance and paramedic staff deemed as essential service, so that would mean that, under the current system where we have 10 ambulances on service to the residents of the city of Winnipeg, less than 10 ambulances would be available, and I have to question the government's intent with respect to full ambulance service. Why is it so crucial to the government to have less than 10 ambulances on the street when that is deemed to be probably less than what would be the minimum required, judging by the waiting time and the way ambulances are moved about and pulled out of communities like Transcona, like I know they are? They are pulled from their station in Transcona closer to the core of the city, and perhaps some of my colleagues are experiencing similar problems with ambulance service being withdrawn when ambulances in the core are pressed into service, leaving at risk. So I have to question the government's intent when Mr. Shoemaker says that not all ambulance service personnel are going to be deemed essential, and that we are going to have less than a full complement of ambulance paramedics on duty and on call available for emergency situations under The Essential Services Act.

Our proposal with respect to binding arbitration will put in place binding arbitration process or mechanism to resolve the contract impasse that is currently in effect and give a mechanism with which to deal with the issues that are in dispute. What the government is proposing through its essential services inclusion of the paramedics does not propose any way to resolve the dispute between the two parties and, in fact, interferes, I might add, quite directly in that dispute.

Now I know the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) has given an assurance that his government will not implement this legislation and will not proclaim it until such time as a full and thorough discussion is held between the paramedics and the City of Winnipeg. We hold the minister to that. We take him at his word, but we do hold him to that commitment with respect to that undertaking that he has made, but we still think it is in the best public interest to have the dispute-settlement mechanism in place to deal with the dispute itself.

We think that the paramedic service, the ambulance services, are crucial. They are critical to the well-being of our community, and that if there is some way that we can put in place a settlement mechanism that will prevent any possibility or likelihood of ambulance service interruption in the future, that would be the way to go, just as we have with our firefighters and our police and our teachers and now our doctors. We would think paramedics would fall into that same umbrella as crucial services, and we would hope the government would have supported binding arbitration as a mechanism to protect the public.

There are other issues with respect to this bill. We hope that the government will consider that, when we do go to debate on the bill that we have before us dealing with The Fire Departments Arbitration Act, where we moved to change the outdated language that is in the original act, and that when we come forward, Madam Speaker, with our amendment dealing with binding arbitration for firefighters, the government will recognize that we should put in place a mechanism to solve this issue well into the future and to prevent the likelihood of any future service interruptions. So we hope that the government will look very seriously at supporting that particular bill. We think that our amendment dealing with binding arbitration is the way to go, and we had hoped that the government would have come to their senses and would have allowed for that process to occur, that they would be more interested in the public interest than they are with respect to their own public profile with respect to bringing paramedics under the essential services.

The paramedics themselves are calling for binding arbitration. We hope the government would at least, at the process they are at right now, open some discussions with the City of Winnipeg to have some consideration undertaken with respect to binding arbitration. Then we can move in that direction to prevent the likelihood of future service interruptions.

We have ambulance services in Brandon and Thompson that have the benefit. We know there are Natural Resources officers in the Whiteshell that have the opportunity to have them covered under the act itself. We would hope the same situation would apply for the city of Winnipeg residents. We hope the government will listen to the comments that were made by the members of the public and the members of this House commenting on Bill 27, because we think there are other solutions other than the ones that they have proposed through Bill 27.

So with those few words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to vote on Bill 27.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I will have a number of words that I want to put on the record with respect to this particular bill. As I have indicated on a number of different occasions prior, whether it was in second reading or more so, I should say, at committee stage, the emotion that was presented by the official opposition is that we are quite disappointed both in the government and the official opposition. I am going to take some time to comment as to why that disappointment is there.

* (1450)

There are all sorts of strategic moves that quite often are used in order to prevent the government from taking actions that are not in the best interests of Manitobans. We, as a rather small political party inside the Chamber, have attempted to convince the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) and the official opposition to recognize the injustice that they are doing by passing this legislation today.

Well, that is what the official opposition critic did indicate, that he was going to be the last speaker. As I say, I will comment on this aspect in terms of responsibility for opposition members and government members in doing what is right, but I wanted first to talk about some of the things that we had thought.

In going through our rule book, there is the one clause which I have seen so effectively used in the past. In fact, it was the former MLA Jay Cowan that spoke at great length, and it was a labour bill, final offer selection. There was a reason why Jay Cowan spoke on that bill at great length. It is because at the time the third party did not care for what the government of the day was doing with this particular piece of labour legislation.

What they did is they looked into the rule book and came up with many different ways in which one can prevent the government of the day from proceeding ahead. In this particular case, I do not know the actual rule number then, but in essence the same rule that I would cite right now is Rule 37.(2), where the Leader of a government, the Leader of an opposition party, or the Leader of a recognized opposition party may each designate one member to speak in debate for such time as the member desires. That member may speak in the debate for such a period as he or she desires if, and then it lists on.

The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that then Jay Cowan was provided the opportunity to speak indefinitely on final offer selection. By doing that, the former member Jay Cowan was able to ensure that that bill was not going to pass as long as he was prepared to stand on his feet and address that bill.

I remember it quite well. The hours and the hours went on, and there was a lot of frustration that was being created inside this Chamber, primarily from the government side, I must say. I sat back, because I had some very solid thoughts on final offer selection, and I admired what the then member was doing.

You know, if we had the opportunity to have that particular designation, the Liberal Party would use that designation today, and I would do what I could as a representative of the party to ensure that this particular piece of legislation does not or would not pass third reading. I do not know how long I would have been able to go, Madam Speaker, but I do believe that at the very least it would have been for a few days, given our current rules, but it is a very important rule.

We look at other aspects of how this Chamber operates. If we look at the committee room, and had there been due time or notification of the government indicating what it was going to do, it would have allowed others to be able to participate in the process. Again, I will go back to final offer selection, where in final offer selection in a committee room we saw hours and hours of presentation, and I tell you that, again, served a purpose. At the end of it, we actually thought we had a motion in which we, being combined opposition, would have seen final offer selection continue. Well, it went on, as I say, for a great length. Why? Because there was due time that was given of notification, which allowed opposition parties, which allowed members of the public, to participate in voicing their concerns at the committee level in order to ensure that the government was listening and the government was not given an easy ride in passing that particular legislation.

So you have rules of that nature, Madam Speaker, and then you have what I classify, as I say, rules that can be used in order to prevent the debate to occur. They can be somewhat mischievous. You know, one could stand up no doubt on a matter of privilege, as an example, and speak at great length as to why the government, by doing or taking the actions that they are doing, is, in fact, infringing on my rights as an MLA to give good, solid representation on this particular issue because of the manner in which the government has brought it in and taking also into consideration that the government is not prepared to do what is right, given the fact that we are now into that mediation. So it could have been a matter of privilege.

Madam Speaker, earlier today, it could have been an emergency debate. We could have stood up on a matter of urgent public importance and talked about why it is that this government should not be passing this legislation because there is a valid argument to be made that we knew the government House leader (Mr. Praznik) was again going to be introducing this bill, and it is not in the public's best interest to have this bill pass. It is a valid argument. Who knows what would have happened? But, unfortunately, because of rulings that we have seen in the past, it is something that likely would have been ruled out. At one time, you would be able to challenge the Speaker's ruling and let the bells ring.

There are also issues or rules such as grievances. For 15 minutes, I could have used a grievance in order to attempt to prolong the debate. Well, I say this because, as an individual MLA and talking with my colleague for The Maples and talking with the Leader of the Liberal Party, there are some limitations that we have and we have to acknowledge inside this Chamber. Those limitations will change in the future. I think that what we need to do is to reflect on the good old days in the first two years of this government's administration, in the first two years where we saw a minority government. If this was a minority government today, this bill would not be passing. This government would have been forced to be more co-operative. The official opposition would have been forced to behave in a more responsible fashion in dealing with this particular bill. I really and truly believe that to be the case.

Madam Speaker, the issue of the rules and what can be done in order to cause frustration of the legislative process is a very positive thing. That is a part of the parliamentary practices that are absolutely essential in order to allow this Chamber to work. Having gone over in great detail some of the rules that I would have as an individual MLA, or the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) would have been able to use in order to prevent this bill from passing, the conclusion was drawn that we might be able to put it off for a day where this debate would end come tomorrow. We might have been able to do that. But there is no doubt that by the end of tomorrow, it is abundantly clear that this legislation was in fact going to pass. The reason why that became very transparent is because we believed that the New Democrats were not prepared to go to bat for the paramedics. That really disappoints us tremendously, especially if you take a look at the comments and the things that they have said. Their record of talk is so high, but when it comes to action, they really disappoint many of the people who they say that they represent. It is because of that, Madam Speaker, that we believe that this bill will ultimately pass.

But it is important that our paramedics and others who think that the NDP are friendly to the actual worker, the union worker–it just is not the case. This is an excellent example of that, because here the official opposition has a chance, has an opportunity to do something constructive, something creative in terms of providing a better atmosphere for those negotiations, and what has it done? It has completely, 100 percent, caved in to the demands of this government–absolutely amazed to the degree that they have caved in. This is something which Jay Cowan would never have supported, I believe. I do not believe for a moment that if Jay Cowan was sitting around that caucus table that Jay Cowan would have allowed this opposition party to have been sucked in by the government of the day.

* (1500)

This is a young session, you know. What are we, day 30 or whatever day it is. We already have the official opposition being sucked in twice. One was on a vote on the budget, and the next one is on this legislation. There is absolutely no urgency at all to see this legislation pass. That is what really amazes me in terms of why it is that the official opposition does not see that. Why I want to concentrate some thoughts on that area is because I believe that the official opposition is being grossly negligent in providing legitimate opposition on issues that are important to Manitoba. I really believe that, and I say that because if there were four Liberal MLAs, I could guarantee you this legislation would not be passed. I could guarantee it because the rules–unless, of course, the government was prepared to bring in closure, and I do not think they would have gone to that degree in order to please City Hall. [interjection]

One member says: Remember MTS. Well, another debate for another time. I do not believe that, if we the Liberals had four members inside this Chamber, this bill would, in fact, not pass, because the opportunities to prevent its passage are there. The official opposition has 23 members inside this Chamber. [interjection] One of those members says good members. No doubt every caucus has some good people, but I would challenge any one of the 23 to stand in his place or her place and tell me that they are doing the public a service by passing this legislation today. It is just not possible. I do not believe you can say it with credibility.

I believe I could sit down with any group of constituents pulled at random in my constituency and articulate as to why this legislation should not pass today, and I believe I would get the majority of that group supporting the arguments as I articulate because the key has to be the issue of mediation. There is no threat of a strike that is going to happen tomorrow. We are using a sledge hammer here to swat at a mosquito. That is the essence of it. We have a mediation system. Why are we not prepared to show some confidence, to show some trust in some of our health care workers? Why are we not prepared to start working with our health care professionals? It could be very easily done.

The New Democrats can change their mind. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) can stand up and follow me and speak it out until five o'clock, private members' hour comes by and this is not going to pass today. If every member stood up and spoke on this bill, their 40 minutes, as I will do, you will find that this bill would not pass for a long time, especially if one of them had the courage, as Jay Cowan had, and stand up at great length in terms of time and prevent this bill from its passage, because the urgency is not there. It really and truly is not there, and, for the life of me, I do not understand why the official opposition has let down, I believe, a very important profession in our health care field.

I think, Madam Speaker, if we take a look at words versus actions, actions speak a lot louder than words. Look at the health care, the NDP in Saskatchewan and the nurses, how the nurses were legislated to go back to work under an NDP administration and then the nurses illegally continued because of the treatment from the NDP government. [interjection]

Well, Madam Speaker, then you look at it and here you have the New Democrats in opposition sending the same sort of message. I do not understand why they are doing it. I really and truly do not understand why they are doing it.

I tell you, I really believe if the official opposition wanted to do it, they could even make some headlines doing it. They could generate some attention. They could show their support of our health care workers. That is something which I would love to see in terms of happening the moment that I sit down. I would love to see the official opposition show some of the vigour that the former member Jay Cowan showed on the final offer selection legislation, to see some of the passion that he used, not only in words but in actions.

I have heard the official opposition rattle on in committee, in second reading, very, very briefly in third reading, and a little bit on the motion that they introduced in terms of the amendment, when the Liberal Party supported the binding arbitration. A lot of words, but when it comes to action, they disappeared. That is the type of message where I will be saying, when I go out and I talk to members of my constituency, that actions speak a lot louder than words. I tell you, when it comes to good government, you want to see good government? You had better go back to the days of '88 to '90 when there was more accountability because it was a minority government. Those were the days. You know, in two years, we sat close to 300 days. In the last year, I think we sat, what, 31 days?

Well, Madam Speaker, I think accountability is needed in this Chamber again, and I believe that it is going to be Jon Gerrard who is going to bring more accountability to this Chamber. I really and truly believe that to be the case.

Well, Madam Speaker–

An Honourable Member: You want more water, Kevin? More water for Kevin.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, I would be more than happy to have more water if I would be given leave to continue indefinitely on my speech.

* (1510)

An Honourable Member: No. You are lucky that we are going to give you 15 more minutes, Kevin.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, I wanted leave, Madam Speaker, but the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) says no to allowing me leave.

But, Madam Speaker, I believe it is a point that is worth making in terms of the neglect that we have seen from the official opposition, gross negligence. I believe it is equally negative for the government to not recognize the achievements, that our paramedics have been very successful and responsible in their actions, in particular in committee and their comments to alleviate the concerns of a possible strike. Today, we actually have mediation that is going on. That is why we do not believe that the government should be trying to rush through this legislation.

We believe what the government should be doing is allowing this bill to continue to rest on the Order Paper. Let us wait at the very least until the mediation has come to an end. Because what happens in mediation if both sides agree to binding arbitration? Well, this legislation that I am debating today, this legislation that the government is overly eager to pass–the NDP, I am sure, if they were in government, would probably have brought in closure on it by now–this legislation would not even be required, would not even be needed. If the mediators come back in with binding arbitration, are we then going to see the legislation repealed?

You know, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) raised an excellent point in committee. The minister acknowledged it, that being what happens if there is some sort of a settlement between now and the passage of the bill. The minister did, at the very least, imply that it is something which would be of interest to him, and quite possibly would prevent its passage.

Madam Speaker, what are the chances of a binding arbitration? I would suggest to you that the chances are very great for binding arbitration. All you have to do is look at what is happening around us. If people would have listened as we in the Liberal Party did in the committee stage, you would have heard that the Fire Department and our police service have binding arbitration.They are an essential service.

Madam Speaker, the official opposition and the government would also have heard that there are very strong arguments for binding arbitration for our other essential service in that area, being our ambulance or paramedic services. If you take a look at what has actually happened, back in I believe it was in '94 when they started the movement towards amalgamating, you saw that the fire and the paramedics, the firemen, and I do not know if there is–is it fire person? I am not 100 percent sure.

An Honourable Member: Firefighter.

Mr. Lamoureux: Firefighter is the gender-neutral terminology for that. Firefighters and the paramedics are going to be working side by side. Already today they are working side by side. How can you have one receiving binding arbitration and the other not receiving binding arbitration?

We asked the question, and I think that people have to respect the fact. Put yourselves in the shoes of being a paramedic, where you are going to a fire station and your colleagues on the fire side are having their contracts negotiated and, ultimately, if need be, going through binding arbitration, whereas you have essential services legislation or whatever else might be there. Is that fair or appropriate to see? I would argue not.

I tried to approach this whole issue with an open mind, as I did in second reading. In second reading we were prepared to see this bill go into the committee stage, because we wanted to listen to what was being said. What very quickly became apparent, we were the only ones who were really listening, at least in its entirety. Not 100 percent factual, quite possibly; yesterday the government did bring in an amendment. They did bring in an amendment, but let us–

An Honourable Member: That is because we listened.

Mr. Lamoureux: Because you listened in part, not because you listened in its entirety.

The amendment, think about the amendment. The government says, look, we will pass the legislation through but, instead of making it effective the moment that it gets Royal Assent, we are going to make it effective when the government of the day says we want to make it effective. Well, I would speculate, I have not canvassed all the paramedics, but I do not think that gave a warm, fuzzy feeling inside the minds of our paramedics.

An Honourable Member: A fuzzy feeling is in the heart, not the mind, Kevin.

Mr. Lamoureux: A warm, fuzzy feeling in the heart too. I am sorry, did I say mind? Heart. I would ask Hansard to replace the word "heart" with "mind," but I do not think they will do that, quite frankly, but that was what was meant.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the government recognized that their amendment albeit improved the legislation, but I do not think it made our hearts a little bit warmer or fuzzier.

Then you have the New Democrats, who were quite keen on listening or giving the perception that they were listening. They talked a fine line but, as I pointed out earlier, their lack of actions on the bill are in fact going to allow the bill to pass. That is why I would argue that they too were not listening, so you have both the government and the official opposition that were not listening to what people were really saying inside the committee.

Well, with all modesty, I think–[interjection] You know, the Leader of the Liberal Party did come before the committee and indicated very clearly: what is the rush; why are we doing this? [interjection] Well, again, members from both sides are saying what did he say. Madam Speaker, I rest my case. I told you they were not listening.

They are asking me what the Leader said. Well, if you read Hansard, you will find out what he said. But, Madam Speaker, you proved my case. You were not listening. So that you know, I will reinforce what the Leader of the Liberal Party was saying, and it can be summed up in a very short concise statement: What is the urgency? Why are we doing it today? Listen to what the union was saying. Listen to what other members of the committee were saying. There was no urgency then, and there is definitely no urgency today, because we even have a mediator in place.

So, Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily want to digress too much. For those who want to know, I encourage them strongly to read Hansard, and you will find exactly what the Leader of the Liberal Party's position is, along with the party's position. The difference is we are at least prepared to do what we can to at least try to bring a little bit more common sense to the issue that we have before us.

As I indicated, we need to put ourselves in the mind of the paramedic–before others had gotten me a little bit off track–that paramedic who wakes up in the morning, who goes into that firehall and realizes that there are two totally different mechanisms in terms of how labour resolutions are going to be resolved. You know, I posed the question in committee as to what impact does that have on morale? I did that because I believe that it does have a negative impact. You are not just talking about a negative impact on our paramedics. You are talking about a negative impact on our Fire Department personnel also, because these individuals work side by side. How is it possible for one not to be sympathetic to what is happening with their paramedic colleagues or vice versa on different issues?

* (1520)

It was made very clear from our paramedics in terms of the some of the cross-training that is done, Madam Speaker, that there is a special bond that has been developed between this particular emergency service. We need to respect that fact. We need to respect the fact that the paramedic is, in fact, not being or has not been treated appropriately in this area of binding arbitration. I, and I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), wanted to get more first-hand information at the committee stage as to why it is that we had the legislation, because of the way in which it came out. It seemed to have come from nowhere. We found out one day, and then it is in second reading that particular day, and then we are in committee before you know it. The government said it did not know about it until then. Well, you know, it was May 11 in the Winnipeg Sun, the subheadline was: Strike looms unless workload is reduced.

The government should have had an idea of what was happening in this area. I do not think anyone was surprised. I think the biggest surprise was just the size of the strike vote that occurred. I believe, and I am going by memory from committee, it was indicated that 94 percent were in favour. They wanted to demonstrate very clearly to the city to take them seriously because they felt that they were not being treated fairly, that the negotiations were going nowhere awfully quickly.

So you have to put everything into some form of a perspective in which we understand what was happening at the time, and the time that I think that we really have to focus on, more than any other, quite frankly, is the committee meetings that we had on it, or committee meeting, because we only had–no, actually, we had the two. But that is where we should be focusing in on: what the situation of the day or the situation of the issue really was.

There was no real threat of a strike. Some union representatives indicated that the mayor was out of town, and they had felt that it would be, in fact, inappropriate for it, that it is something which they would not necessarily support. I am being very mild in my words, and it is because I do not want to put words in the mouths of the presenters, but that, I think, was the essence of it.

Well, if you take a look at the committee meeting and then you take a look at the facts since then, that we now have a mediator that has been appointed, well, I would argue and articulate that there is no urgency, that there is no need for the Minister of Health to have this bill pass. You know, whether it was in second reading or–I should not say second reading–whether it was in committee stage or through the amendment, there were questions or concerns expressed to the Minister of Health. We have not seen those issues addressed.

I would like to hear from the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) what they really believe the impact of passing this legislation today is going to have on negotiations for which we have a mediator. Does the Minister of Labour and does the Minister of Health believe that its passage today will have absolutely no impact? I think that is a valid question. That is something that the government should be addressing. I said earlier what about the issue of the binding arbitration in the mediation process. Does this have an impact on the union's ability to negotiate in good faith the binding arbitration through mediation? What impact does it have?

There is nothing that is positive in passing this legislation today that is going to have a positive impact for Manitobans and their safety, something in which we, in the Liberal Party, do place as our first priority. That is the reason why we did have some discussions in a limited way with some of the union representatives.

I see that I only have two minutes left. With such limited time it is likely a good thing I did not come with speaking notes. Had I come with detailed speaking notes, I would have wanted to continue on at length. As the member for St. Norbert said: I do not think I would have been given leave to continue on.

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) indicates that he would have given leave. Before I wind up, I would ask if in fact there is leave for me to be able to continue on with my speech. I do have a lot more that I would like to say.

An Honourable Member: I do not think so.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can I ask if I do have leave?

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to speak beyond his 40 minutes? Yes or no.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, you cannot blame a person for asking. But I can blame the government for its actions on passing this bill. I will definitely blame the New Democrats in their gross negligence in not standing up, debating, and protecting the interests of our health care workers. Talk is cheap. I am very disappointed. It should be made very clear in conclusion, it is because of the official opposition that this bill is passing. They have been sucked in by the government. It is sad to see that this has in fact occurred.

* (1530)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I have spoken on this bill before. I was in the committee and I wish to speak on the bill.

I just want to indicate on the record that the member for Inkster should not lecture anyone about his position or the Liberal Party's position on labour legislation, particularly on final offer selection. For those members who were not here at the time, it was the classic Liberal, their fence strategy, because they were firmly on both sides of the issue. What was interesting is that we opposed final offer selection being taken out of legislation. The government was pretty clear on the other side. So the Liberals brought in an amendment to extend it by another six months. They were against it but not as much against it. They wanted to get rid of it in a slower fashion.

It was quite a picture when in committee we supported the amendment, then in the House the combined Conservative and New Democratic party positions for two opposite reasons voted against the unprincipled position of the Liberals and defeated the legislation. Quite frankly, I will never forget the shock on the look of the Liberals' faces. For the Liberals now to suggest they are friends of working people, it was not just on final offer selection. When it came to Filmon Fridays, when it came to the wage freeze, you remember on those issues, it was a pretty clear distinction. You know where the Conservatives were. You knew where the New Democrats were, on the opposite side. When it came to the Liberals, where were they?

I notice the member for Inkster, maybe a little bit concerned about the Inkster constituency now, but if he wants to go with his record and the Liberal record when it comes to working people in the constituency of Inkster, I suggest to him he better start with the fact that ever since he has been in this Legislature he has consistently supported the Conservatives in antilabour legislation, consistently supported, particularly when it came to final offer selection.

I want to say, their position–

An Honourable Member: Can you imagine my surprise when the Leader of the Liberal Party came back to my office the next morning?

Mr. Ashton: It is interesting, because the member for Riel, I have heard about his surprise when he learned of what had happened. I think it showed again the difficulty the Liberal Party has had for quite some time in this province. This sort of position, we saw it on this bill. We saw it on this bill. Now the member for Inkster comes in and says, well, you know, like, other parties are not taking a definitive position, and we are representing the paramedics and working people. We are dealing with it. You know what their position was on arbitration when we said the proper approach to arbitration was? Well, we are not sure and we should not have arbitration unless both parties agree. They did not agree with it. That was their first position. Then I remember sitting in that committee when the Liberal Leader came up. Now, members in the House were there when the Liberal Leader came up. I could sense the ghost of Mackenzie King's and Jon Gerrard's statements, because it was sort of arbitration if necessary but not necessarily arbitration.

I mean, you know, the minister asked various questions. Our Leader asked questions, and the more he spoke the more he put himself firmly on both sides of the issue. Now, to the Conservatives' credit, we know where they stood. They wanted this legislation, the essential services legislation. We have indicated we felt the appropriate way was to deal with it the same way that you deal with firefighters.

You know when the Liberals made up their minds on the issue of arbitration, when we moved the amendment to report stage, it took the New Democrats to focus their thinking to get Mr. Gerrard, sitting as he often does from the gallery I assume phoning in directions to his caucus member to actually figure out which side of the issue he was on. I tell you that my experience with the Liberal Party in this Legislature is if there was another way they could have voted, they would have probably voted to abstain.

What we still remember on MTS, one of the critical votes, when one voted for, one voted against and the other one abstained. Only the Liberal Party could be on all sides of the issue. I just say to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), now thanks to our amendment the Liberal Party has made up its mind which side of the issue it was on. He might want to put on the record some thanks to those of us who did not have to wait and sit there and toss coins or however else the Liberal Party decides things.

Now we know it is a matter of principle. What was fair for firefighters was fair for paramedics. That is why we made the particular proposal. I say to members, I say to the Liberal member as well, because it is going to be interesting in terms of this particular legislation, what is the member saying here? Is he now opposed to this legislation? Because I will be interested to see how the Liberals react in terms of that. We are not sure where they are at. Once again, I say to the Liberals, they have discovered parliamentary tactics and I think that is fair, but when you have a tactic, you normally have a clear strategy attached to it.

When it comes to this Legislature, there are all sorts of opportunities to involve oneself in debate, and I have on occasion spoken at length on issues with a tactical aspect to it, but with a strategic reason. I say to members of–well, the member of the Liberal Party on this particular one, that I appreciate that he is now saying I think on the public record here what we all know to be a fact and that is in the next election in Inkster there is going to be a very clear two-way choice for people between the Liberal Party and the New Democrats. The people of Inkster will have a choice on issues such as this involving working people between the Liberals who are on both sides of the issue and the New Democrats who are very clear up front and in favour of arbitration who have consistently, in government and in opposition, we have always been willing to place our position on the table, speak clearly and not rely on another party to make up our mind for us.

I say to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and to the Liberal Party, because I believe that politics is about standing for something, it is about principles. I often say, well, to members of the Conservative Party, I may not agree with where they do show principles on issues, principled decisions, but when it comes to a lot of issues I say to members of the Conservative Party, I understand where they are coming from on a lot of issues. I do not agree with it. They have labour issues. They have distinctly had a bias, clearly. How many times have they amended The Labour Relations Act, two, three, four times? You know, Workers Compensation. I think it is criminal in this province that we are running a surplus on Workers Compensation while injured workers go without the kind of coverage they should be receiving in this province.

I understand where they are coming from, but I say to the Liberals, and I notice by the way, I think the member for Inkster kind of put up on this, because most of his 40 minutes was spent attacking us in terms of now the member for Inkster being the self-proclaimed opposition. I notice Mr. Gerrard.

I want to say to the member for Inkster the choice we are going to be taking to constituencies throughout the province, including Inkster, is a choice. In this particular case, he may be saying that the Liberals will–I do not know if we should get into plural but certainly the Liberal, because we do not know how people will choose on this. I will say to the member for Inkster, our message in Inkster is that the New Democratic Party is running for government and the people in Inkster will have the choice of electing a member of the next NDP government. That is going to be our campaign message in this election.

I respect the member for Inkster in saying that because I do believe he certainly is a very lively person in this Chamber, and I enjoy working with him as a member of the Legislature. It is not anything personal, but I think that is the point. One of the factors is that if you want to be considered as a party for government, you have to be in a position of saying to people, here is what we stand for, and in this particular case on this bill, from day one, what we indicated, we were prepared to debate this. Unlike the Liberals, we did recognize the urgency of the situation, and I say to the Liberal member, the urgency of the situation is, you know, he says, well, the mediator has been put in place, but we were not prepared to sit back and hide behind tactics without recognizing the fact that we needed to have a debate on this. We did have a debate, and we put on the record our position and, in fact, amazingly enough, the Liberals supported what we had said.

An Honourable Member: Reluctantly.

Mr. Ashton: Reluctantly. They were dragged kicking and screaming, supporting arbitration, but he should not now get up on the record and suggest that somehow the Liberal Party was speaking for the paramedics on this issue, because right from day one, we were the ones, not the government, not the Liberals, who contacted not only the city but also the paramedics as well. By the way, I think the fact that we were able to come up with a proposal of that nature is indicative of the kind of approach that is needed in this province to decision making, to government. You cannot simply, as the government did in this particular case, they got a letter, and they said, we will do it. Now, you notice, by the way–[interjection]

Yes, it is interesting, because how many other times has the city requested things from the provincial government? Many times. Usually they say no, but lo and behold, when this deals with labour relations, you know, the government, the only question they had when the city said, jump on this, was how high. We talked to the city. We talked to the paramedics, and you know, the end result, and we listened to the public. The public told us that what needed to happen in this case was a debate, which is what we have had, and also a specific proposal to bring in arbitration. It makes sense to the public, and I say to the member for Inkster who in his speech said, well, we can talk to members of the public out there. They said to us, if it is good enough for the firefighters, it is good enough for the paramedics.

* (1540)

We would have not got to that point if we had followed what the Liberals wanted to do earlier on. They did not want to get to report stage where we did bring in that amendment, an amendment that was in order, that they actually supported. They wanted instead to avoid getting to that, and I really think that one of the problems here with the Liberals, I think they wanted to avoid having to make a decision on where they stood on arbitration. I really believe it came down to that. I heard Jon Gerrard, by the way, and I say to the member for Inkster, I listened, I heard, and all I could see was the same kind of being on both sides of an issue.

That is not good enough for the people of Manitoba. The people of Manitoba expect MLAs and they expect political parties to stand for something and also make responsible decisions.

An Honourable Member: It is the south-end Lexus Liberals you have got to watch for.

Mr. Ashton: There is some reference, I think, to the south-end Liberals. I do note that there seems to be a distinct focus on the Liberal Party, and I say, in conclusion on this particular bill, in terms of my comments, that we are very up front with our position. We spent a lot of time consulting with all sides. I give credit to our critic, our Labour critic, for bringing in a resolution. We brought in a number of amendments at committee that were ruled out of order at that time. We did a lot of work at getting matters that could be debated dealt with in scope.

I consider it an achievement on this particular case if we have at least forced the Liberal Party to come down from that fence and make up its mind that it was on our side of the issue. But for the member for Inkster, for 40 minutes to attack the New Democratic Party, the party that gave him and his leader and his colleague direction on this issue, I think it is highly disingenuous. If he wants to focus his attention on this issue, he should be doing not more than just giving lip service to our resolution and report stage, but in this debate on third reading I would have expected him, instead of getting into perhaps more local concerns, about running against the NDP in the next election, because we all know that that is what is going to be happening in many areas. The Liberals are going to be fighting in Inkster, for example, against the New Democrats.

I suggest to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), if he talks to constituents, they will tell him two things. The first thing, by the way, is they will give us credit for taking a stand as compared to the Liberals who did not take the position. The second thing that I will say to the member for Inkster is that in his constituency what people are looking for in this particular case is a government alternative, one that is willing to take a stated position, not a party that will be on both sides of the issue. In this case people want a choice of a party that is clearly in favour in this particular case of a substantive proposal.

That is why I say in conclusion we are not only here in terms of debating at this point in time. We are sending a clear message to the people of Manitoba that what we are doing on this particular bill is the kind of thing that we would do in government: listening to both sides, making a clear alternative, putting it forward in a substantive way, and taking the responsible position of having this matter debated, as we have done quite extensively for a bill of this nature.

We are proud of that. We are prepared to go to the people anytime with that kind of responsible, balanced approach to government that will lead to principled government under New Democratic Party government after the next election. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act.

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

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. On division.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour?

Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? [agreed]

Mr. Newman: I move, Madam Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.