Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could please call report stage on Bill 27. For the information of the House, following report stage, it would be our intention then to go into Committee of Supply for the remainder of the afternoon.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett),

THAT Bill 27 be amended by striking out the proposed clause (h) as set out in section 2 of the bill and substituting the following–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have not yet moved report stage. I think I require my motion and then the member–I was rising when he was recognized.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. There is an amendment to the motion, and the amendment must be dealt with prior to the actual motion.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Once again, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett),

THAT Bill 27 be amended by striking out the proposed clause (h) as set out in section 2 of the bill and substituting the following:

Mr. Reid: I guess we should start from the beginning about how this process came about with respect to this amendment and Bill 27 itself, and we can only look back to last week when the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) came before this Legislative Assembly and asked that leave be provided to introduce Bill 27. The Minister of Health at that time stated it was as a result of a request that the government had received from the City of Winnipeg, in fact, the mayor from the City of Winnipeg, indicating that the ambulance service employees were about to take a strike vote and that they were potentially in the position of withdrawing the continuation of ambulance services for the residents of Winnipeg.

What is interesting to note by that process, Madam Speaker, is that the Minister of Health waited five days after receiving that letter when we all know full well that we can draft up an amendment to any legislation. In fact, the bill that he brought forward was so simple, and its drafting process could have been drafted in a day because the amendment that we had here was able to be drafted overnight. So we know the minister was able to table that bill prior to that instead of trying to rush it before this House.

What is also interesting to note, too, is that when the minister tabled that bill, after waiting five days for the drafting of that bill and his presentation to this House with leave, he waited until the potential day of election call for the province of Manitoba for the tabling of that bill, trying to up the ante, I suspect, in the process.

I guess it is interesting to note that the minister did not determine what perhaps would be other ramifications as a result of his hastiness in bringing forward this piece of legislation. One can only ask why the minister did not look at other options that were available, that this amendment that we have brought forward in report stage suggests that under The Fire Departments Arbitration Act the government could ask that binding arbitration be the process to resolve the outstanding contractual difficulties that are ongoing between the ambulance service employees, the paramedics and the City of Winnipeg.

The minister decided not to use that option, in fact, even though there is some history in this province for binding arbitration being in effect. We have arbitration for the doctors, we have arbitration for the police, we have arbitration for the firefighters of this province. It is too bad that the minister did not contemplate that we could also have the same level of protection for the residents of Winnipeg through binding arbitration for the paramedics, the people that provide the very important ambulance service in the city of Winnipeg.

So one only has to ask, if the minister was so intent on bringing forward and declaring the paramedics for the city of Winnipeg under The Essential Services Act for the City of Winnipeg, why did the minister also not contemplate what is going to happen with the ambulance services for the community of Selkirk or perhaps the community of Beausejour? Are they, too, going to be declared essential services, and if they are going to be declared essential services, should they too have binding arbitration? Because this is more than just going to affect the City of Winnipeg paramedics. There are other communities in the province that are going to be affected as a result of the government's haste in wanting to bring forward the inclusion of paramedics under the process of essential services laws that the government brought in a couple of years ago. So I hope that the government has contemplated what their intent is, even though the minister has said that he is going to be delaying the implementation of the bill and will not proclaim it. I was happy to see that upon questioning in committee, the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) made a promise that he would consult quite broadly prior to any decision to implement or to proclaim the bill should it receive passage in this House.

* (1450)

The interesting part is that under The Fire Departments Arbitration Act, the law does allow for employees that are working as a part of the emergency response unit in the city of Winnipeg, that they would be covered under this arbitration act, and yet the government did not take into consideration that the paramedics of the city of Winnipeg are now a part of the firefighters' department under the heading of the Emergency Response department for the City of Winnipeg.

So, if that is already the case, and as we already know that those two departments have been blended together and they are now forming one department, I guess the technical question needs to be asked here: are those employees, the paramedics, not already considered to be part of The Fire Departments Arbitration Act in this province? Perhaps the minister could turn his mind to that and have some consultation with Legislative Counsel on the interpretation of the act and how that would affect people that are already a part of the City of Winnipeg Fire Department under its new name, the Emergency Response department.

It is our understanding that this government has allowed the process, has slowed down the process of this bill, and after coming forward with what was apparently such haste on the part of the government to go with the introduction of Bill 27, the government has slowed the process down and it has been quite a number of days now since there has been any discussion or further debate on this bill, even though the government was intent to have this bill moved forward with all haste at the time it was tabled.

Since that time it is our understanding there have been further discussions between the ambulance service employees representatives and the City of Winnipeg, and that they have gone through the conciliation process. It is my understanding that the conciliator now has filed a report or is in the process of filing a report with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe), or laying out what the remaining difficulties are since the two parties still have not resolved their contractual difficulties. In the case of the conciliator's report, it is my understanding, too now, that the Minister of Labour has received a request from the paramedics asking for mediation, in fact, has asked for binding mediation. It is interesting to note that, when that was presented in the presence of the conciliator during the negotiations when the paramedics presented that as a part of their proposals during conciliation, the City of Winnipeg representatives actually indicated a willingness to accept binding mediation. Then an hour later, coming back after the lunch period, decided, no, that was not on, and they withdrew their offer to go to the binding mediation process. So here we have again what appears to be a stonewalling or delaying tactic on the part of the negotiators for the City of Winnipeg, first agreeing to something again, and now withdrawing that offer and going back to their old position.

I would hope that the minister would look at the request that is coming from the paramedics for binding mediation and to commence the mediation process because it is my understanding that the minister has had this request in his hands now for two days and that there should be some progress made with respect to a decision on the appointment of a mediator.

Now, I would expect that the minister would probably, in his capacity as minister, be waiting for a letter from the City of Winnipeg with respect to their position on the appointment of a mediator. I do know, though, that there has been a request to have Mr. Wally Fox-Decent appointed as the mediator for this contract impasse that is occurring, and, failing that, Mr. Paul Teskey will be the second choice.

I hope the minister that has those proposals on his desk before him will make that decision on a short order to allow these negotiations to continue because it is my understanding that the government is now asking the government-appointed people with respect to the Pan Am Games Committee what is going to happen with ambulance-service protection during the course of the Pan Am Games, and that they want to have commitment from the ambulance service employees and from the City of Winnipeg for continuity of service. Since there has been no progress on that regard, it is very difficult, I would imagine, for either of the parties to answer the question about ambulance service. So I would hope that the minister would appoint a mediator to allow for a resolution of the contract impasse and to make sure that the Pan Am Games are able to have some level of comfort or assurance that there will be ambulance services available and provided where, when, and if necessary.

Madam Speaker, I would expect that, after a number of times now that this contract has been highlighted in the media and has been the focus now for some time and has not been resolved–in fact, I believe it is going back over a year, perhaps two years, without a contract for the paramedics–the government would want to have this matter resolved in an expeditious fashion. I would expect that since the conciliation process has not, from my understanding, been successful, we do not want to have a withdrawal of services and, as I raised in this House last Thursday, the possibility or the spectre of having the City of Winnipeg lock out their paramedics, which, I think, would be detrimental to the residents of Winnipeg and not in the best interests of the citizenry that we represent.

I would hope that the City of Winnipeg would not follow that course of action because I think it would be a total conflict of interest for the City Council and its negotiating representatives to first ask the government to bring forward an essential services inclusion for the paramedics in the City of Winnipeg and then to be contemplating using the lockout provisions of those same employees. I do not understand the logic of how you can deem someone to be an essential service and, at the same time, deem them not to be essential by threatening to lock them out.

Now I guess the bigger question that remains too is what happens, now that the City of Winnipeg, at least from what we understand, has made this indication in options to be considered by councillors, whether or not this constitutes an unfair labour practice in the province of Manitoba. It will be interesting to note whether or not an unfair labour practice is indeed filed with the Manitoba Labour Board because I think it would go a long way to determine how the City of Winnipeg contemplates their action during their negotiating process. I would hope that they would not be contemplating a lockout since they have already asked the government to bring forward The Essential Services Act amendments, Madam Speaker.

We would hope that, with this government's intention now to go through the report stage, going into potentially the third reading of this bill, the minister would contemplate quite clearly moving this matter into the binding arbitration arena and allow for some debate on that process as a way of resolving the outstanding contractual difficulties between the parties.

Madam Speaker, I do not think anybody in this Chamber or anybody in the city of Winnipeg that would utilize or rely on the ambulance services would want to see an interruption of those very critical services, that we would see that binding arbitration would be a way to solve that problem into the future so that the parties would be able to resolve their differences in a fair and reasonable fashion, and that we see that binding arbitration would give that level of comfort or assurance to the residents of Winnipeg which the government's proposal to put under the essential services agreement does not.

The minister says in his comments during committee on Bill 27 that he does not want to interfere with the negotiation process. Yet, by bringing forward this bill, that is essentially what he has done by putting in an amendment that the government would not proclaim that bill until a time that would be more appropriate. I am not sure on whose terms that that would be declared, because that is still to be defined in committee. When I asked the question, the minister could not tell us who would make the final decision other than perhaps it would be a cabinet decision. We do not know who would trigger the implementation of The Essential Services Act or the proclamation of that Bill 27 that we have before us.

So those are questions that are still to be answered. We hope the minister will take the time now that we are here in debate on report stage of Bill 27 to give us some indication of what his government's intention is with respect to the proclamation of Bill 27 should it pass third reading and to our request to have this process move away from The Essential Services Act and move into the arena of binding arbitration to allow fair and reasonable negotiations between the parties to take place and to make sure that both sides are treated equally and fairly. That is what we are asking by this resolution here today, and we hope that members of this House will support our amendment to Bill 27 that would put binding arbitration into process and allow for fair and reasonable settlement of the outstanding contractual differences between the paramedics and the City of Winnipeg negotiators.

So I hope other members will take the time to comment as well with respect to this matter and to give their support on this amendment to Bill 27.

* (1500)

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to this issue that is before the House. Speaking to this amendment, I must say, right off the bat, that, no, I do not support the member's amendment, and I would like to go into the reasons why. We on this side of the House do not believe in autocratically demanding that the city do anything unless they have had that discussion. The request has not come from the city to go to arbitration, and only the NDP, as they did back in 1970, would impose upon the city such a structure without having consensus between both parties and have it negotiated.

We as a government believe that through mediation and through consultation the members affected, both the paramedics and the City of Winnipeg, can come to an agreement. This type of agreement should be negotiated. If there is going to be arbitration, it should be negotiated between the two parties so they can come to a fair resolution.

When the member spoke about the lockout and unfair labour practices, that issue does raise some fears in my heart, and I do believe that, under the system that we have put in place by our amendment that we brought forward at committee, the bill on proclamation will become law instead of on Royal Assent. That gives us an opportunity to give the paramedics an opportunity to carry on a very open discussion with the City of Winnipeg without them having that capability of using that lockout threat against them.

I think the honourable member just might have been right. If the city did make such a threat and if there is such a document, I would only hope that our brothers within the paramedic system would get hold of that document and use it against the city in their discussions with the city during their labour dispute.

Madam Speaker, essential services, yes, we all agree. The paramedics agree, the City of Winnipeg agrees, we on this side agree, as do members on the other side of the House, but essential services does not mean necessarily that you have to have arbitration. At this time, both parties, I understand, have put forward their requests for the mediator. The honourable member said that they had asked for Wally Fox-Decent, but what he did not put forward–well, I did not hear him anyway-that they had also requested Paul Teskey as their choice, both the city and the paramedics.

I do believe, given the opportunity for our minister to look at the information being brought forward by both parties, that he will give favourable recommendation. I am hoping that he will give favourable recommendation to this as soon as possible so that we can get on to have the best negotiations possible between both the city and the paramedics.

It is not up to us as a province to get into the negotiations between two parties having a dispute at the City of Winnipeg. If we were to start going into and dealing with all the issues of labour disputes at the City of Winnipeg, we would no longer need the City of Winnipeg Council. We would no longer need some of the legislation that covers and gives them the security that they want.

We must look at the history of it. The Fire Department was in the 1970s brought under The Fire Departments Arbitration Act. That was done by the NDP government of the day, yes. They did not negotiate between the two parties. They arbitrarily brought it in, Madam Speaker, because there was a labour dispute at the time. They just brought it in without consulting the parties, and the parties did not both agree to it. In 1986 when the police services were brought under The City of Winnipeg Act, that was negotiated. That was negotiated between both parties, the police and the City of Winnipeg, and both parties agreed to it. So that one was done correctly.

So, Madam Speaker, for us to indiscriminately stand here today and bring forward an amendment that would impose upon the city arbitration would be unfair. For us to impose upon the city our power to say you will have an arbitrated proposal, I think, would be unfair. We have always dealt fairly with the city and dealt with their requests when they bring them forward. I think that it is important that we can continue to have the consultation that we have. We have come a long way. I mean, even Mayor Glen Murray, who has brought forward this request of the city, I did not hear him asking for the arbitration. I think he is looking at the option of dealing with this at the bargaining table, and that is where this matter should be dealt with, at the bargaining table in all fairness. That is how the bargaining should take place.

I have the sense that the two parties will come to an agreement in the end. When and if–and I am sure it will be when–the minister appoints the mediator in the next day or two or three, I am sure that the two parties will be able to come to consensus on a number of the issues that are being brought forward. I only hope that all parties remember that they are an essential service to the city of Winnipeg. We cannot afford to be having them locked out or threatened. They have worked hard on behalf of Winnipeggers and on behalf of Manitobans. If we are in trouble, if we have an accident or we have a family victim down, that is who we want by our side and that is who I want by my side if something goes wrong.

So, yes, I will stand by my paramedics and I will stand by the City of Winnipeg and hope that they can come to an agreement that will be beneficial to both parties, but I will not arbitrarily put upon the city a law that will turn around and say they will be arbitrated. That has to be something that has to be negotiated. So I cannot support this member's amendment.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I could not believe the words from the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). He does not, on the one hand, want to be indiscriminate and unilateral in supporting this amendment, but he would move heaven and earth along with the minister last week to move through one, two, three, in one day a bill to take the City of Winnipeg paramedics and place them from The Labour Relations Act under the provisions of The Essentials Services Act. With friends like that, who needs enemies if you are a friend of the paramedics, a so-called friend of the paramedics?

The bottom line is we have a situation where we all agree under The Labour Relations Act, we would prefer the paramedics, ambulance attendants, and the City of Winnipeg to negotiate a collective agreement. When that cannot happen, the real issue is what should this Legislature do about it. Now the real problem we have now is this sort of half essential services, half not essential services act that is called The Essential Services Act, and we saw that demonstrated at committee.

I would recall to members opposite and to the public, the answers we were given and were given after in committee and outside of committee by Mr. Shoemaker and the other individual from the City of Winnipeg responsible for this issue about what this means and what the contingency plan is for the City of Winnipeg. Well, they were quoted in the newspaper as saying a fraction of the ambulance attendants would be essential. Then they were quoted as saying up to a half of the ambulance services could be essential. Then they were quoted as saying in the hallway maybe seven or eight out of 10 on an evening could be essential. Well, our proposal is in the best public interest because it makes all ambulances essential in the sense that they would have the right to go to arbitration. Members opposite want half of the ambulances or part of the ambulances essential, and we and the employees and I dare say the public want all of them, so, yes, there are the ambulance attendants, they are negotiating with the city. The city is management; the ambulance attendants are workers. There is also the public and this Legislature, I would suggest to members opposite, must take the action in legislation that is in the public interest.

So, when you have a disagreement between the employees and the management under The Labour Relations Act, it is our job to represent the public interest. I defy anybody across the way to argue that a portion of the ambulances on a Friday night that are available by their remedy of putting people under The Essential Services Act is superior to the amendment moved by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) that calls on all of them to be under The Essential Services Act.

I would suggest to members opposite our solution is also consistent with a province-wide parity in the way workers of a similar occupation are treated. In Brandon and in Thompson, ambulance attendees have the right of arbitration. They do not have the right to strike. They are covered under the firefighters or The Fire Departments Arbitration Act and therefore this amendment that we are proposing at report stage would treat the ambulance attendees in a similar way to The Fire Departments Arbitration Act and therefore give people in Winnipeg for ambulance attendees the same rights as the rights of other citizens in other communities.

* (1510)

So let not members opposite when they vote, if they try to vote against this amendment and we will have them vote, they are voting against the public interest. They are voting in favour of one side of the dispute and it is their job to choose the public interest. It is not their job to take management's side or the workers' side as the custodians of labour relations acts of Manitoba. It is their job to take the public interest and you are not doing it. You are not doing it if you vote or speak against this amendment as the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) is. [interjection]

Well, let me make this very simple for the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). Under our proposal on a Friday night we have 10 ambulances; under their proposal we will have five ambulances, maybe six ambulances on a Friday night. Now, I ask you, if you are a citizen in the city of Winnipeg, what is in your public interest? It is to have arbitration. It is to have arbitration in a way that it provides those services to the citizens. Now, Madam Speaker, this Essential Services Act is very misleading because normally, in the olden days, when you had an essential services legislation, it meant that you did not have the right to strike, but you were given something as an alternative to the right to strike, i.e., arbitration, to settle your disputes. This is a half-baked idea that is intended to weaken bargaining units but not resolve disputes. They have a solution that does not bring a resolution. We have a solution that brings a resolution and therefore is a real solution.

Now if the City of Winnipeg feels it is in the public interest to treat these employees as fully essential, then they should be prepared to have them treated in the same way as firefighters and police officers of the City of Winnipeg. As a former Minister of Urban Affairs, I was involved with the former deputy mayor, who is now the minister in a hurry to rush this legislation through, to pass this legislation. I notice it is not the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe). It is the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) trying to deal with this issue. I do not know whether we have a Minister of Labour. I know the former Minister of Labour is here.

Well, I would hope that the Minister of Labour and some others there explain to the Minister of Health why he is not representing the public interest. He is representing management interests. There is no question that this proposal is better for management at the City of Winnipeg in terms of bargaining power and negotiating power. If this Legislature was only dealing with the size of the financial potential settlement at the City of Winnipeg, then they should have the honesty to say so in this Legislature, instead of wrapping themselves around the public interest in The Essential Services Act, and therefore having to vote against something that will really provide essential services with our amendment to provide arbitration.

We, the members opposite, mentioned the early '70s. The firefighters had arbitration before The Labour Relations Act was changed. The Labour Relations Act was changed in the early '70s, and it was changed by the Schreyer government–not amended, I might add, by the Lyon government in the '77-81 period, I am sure, with the member for Lakeside's (Mr. Enns) support. I was with former Premier and Senator Roblin last night, going over some of this history with the gentleman. It was interesting to note in the '70s, the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) says, the firefighters, which were maintained under arbitration, may or may not have wanted the right to strike, and the city wanted the right of those people to go to arbitration. I ask the question: what did the Schreyer government do under those circumstances? Did he act in the interests of the public? Did they act in the interests of the public, or did they act contrary to the public interest? I would suggest strongly that in the early '70s–again, the test of the public interest, which must be balanced with the interests of the workers and the interests of the management, by this Legislature in terms of the rules and laws we pass and the regulations; therefore, we must look at public interests.

I suggest that the test of time has shown that the Schreyer government, and, interestingly, the former deputy premier, the former member for Transcona, Mr. Buzz Paulley, acted in the public interest when they required–when The Labour Relations Act was changed, there was an amendment to The Labour Relations Act, and it stated that this act applies to all employees of Manitoba, save three. One of them, I am just going by memory here, was the firefighters; two, teachers under the school act that were covered by laws passed in the early '50s–of course, again abandoned by members opposite in the last couple of years with Bill 72; and three, public employees, civil servants that were under The Civil Service Act. Those three groups of employees were excluded from the provisions of The Labour Relations Act, and what were all three given in exchange for their essential service nature in requiring public services. They were provided with a resolution mechanism which was binding arbitration. Firefighters, teachers and public employees under The Civil Service Act were provided for with arbitration.

What this government is doing, with a false press release, I might add, is providing half a remedy. I would quote the Minister of Health's press release where it states that the City of Winnipeg has asked other employees to be covered under essential services provisions, such as police officers and firefighters. What he failed to mention is this is not the same kind of provision because it does not provide (a) full protection for the public and (b) it does not provide a resolution mechanism if the collective bargaining process is not concluded successfully.

For members opposite to wrap themselves around collective bargaining is great. Everybody in this Chamber believes in free collective bargaining, and everybody in this Chamber wishes that each and every one of us could see a successful conclusion to all the disputes in labour relations at the bargaining table without strike, lockout, arbitration, mediation, conciliation. That is what we all prefer.

Having said that–[interjection] Well, the member opposite, the former member of the alliance, a well-known trade union leader in his day, maybe he will support arbitration or maybe he can give us a history of how the Mulroney government treated those employees. Of course, the Mulroney government had nothing on the Chretien government. I found it rather interesting, the Liberal Leader, we were gentle on him when he came to committee, because they legislated away the right of collective bargaining for all public employees for five years and legislated a wage cut for all public employees in Canada, but I digress.

Now we are faced with advice from the City of Winnipeg management that came before our committee versus the employees who came before our committee, plus the firefighters that came before our committee that work with these people. I remember at committee the two City of Winnipeg representatives said that this essential services legislation could lead to arbitration–or we should get the Hansard–will lead to arbitration or could lead to arbitration. That is false. There is nothing in this act that provides for arbitration. We do not have to pass The Essential Services Act to deal with arbitration. So, obviously, they knew that arbitration was not a bad idea for the public. They kind of wanted to couch their comments at committee.

Regrettably, though, they did so in such a way that was not available by law, not available through The Essential Services Act amendment proposed by the minister. That is why this amendment by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is very consistent with not only the employees' interest but the public interest. Yes, one side, it is preferable that both sides agree in arbitration before any legislation comes here. I agree with that. But this government chose to come here with only one side agreeing, management; and, therefore, it has to deal with the public interest. The public interest of 10 ambulances on an evening are superior to something less than that being proposed by the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson), and it is also superior in the sense there is a resolution mechanism available to it.

Madam Speaker, I would also quote, and I am trying to find my copy of my material here, but I recall the firefighters' presentation because we all know the paramedics presented a brief that talked about arbitration. They gave us a number of good reasons under their critical shortage of staff, and they also spoke eloquently about the fact that they had to go from hospital to hospital, because of the Tory cutbacks to health care in the city of Winnipeg and all across the province. Sometimes ambulances had to drive for an hour and a half to deal with the backup and pressure of the hallway medicine policies that have become regrettably all too familiar with the implementation of opposite members' health care policies.

Close down hospital rooms before you build the hospital beds to replace them or personal care beds to replace them. Fire the nurses after an election, a thousand nurses after an election and try to rehire 600 a couple of weeks before an election campaign. That is the kind of Tory health care policy. Members opposite, the Tory Party of Manitoba, could not run a first aid kit if they were given a chance to do so, and it is pretty evident to members on this side.

* (1520)

But I digress. They have had more Health ministers in the last three years than Boris Yeltsin has had prime ministers in the last number of years, and it is not a pretty sight I might add. Having said that about the paramedics and ambulance attendants, let me quote from the firefighters: To take–

An Honourable Member: You are boring.

Mr. Doer: I think the member is heckling me here, Madam Speaker. I think I have been heckled. I think I have been heckled here.

An Honourable Member: Who cares what you are thinking?

Mr. Doer: You know, here on the one hand, members opposite have asked for our co-operation to give leave through the first reading, give leave through the second reading and they are probably going to ask leave for later on. Of course, the member opposite is so partisan, so vitriolic, so bitter, so negative that she makes comments like who cares what you say. Well, if you do not care what we say, why are you going to ask us for leave on third reading to co-operate with the government? Maybe you had better talk to your House leader and go back to orientation school about good manners in this Legislature and proper decorum in this stately Chamber of the Legislature. I will recommend that to your House leader, that you go back to orientation school, because I think you need remedial education as it applies to the rules and dignity of this Chamber. And I do that as a public service, Madam Speaker.

I quote from the firefighters' presentation: to take away the right to strike and to not give them binding arbitration is wrong and does no service to the City of Winnipeg. Here is another quote: why do they not wish to support those individuals who every day deal in life-and-death decisions? Fairness, honour, and orderly are the reasons the paramedics should have binding arbitration.

So who is supporting binding arbitration? We are. We did it from day one. When members opposite said that the public safety was at risk, we thought, even before we had talked to the employees, that we had to deal not with the essential services legislation but rather with a more creative way of dealing with these problems.

In testimony in committee, the firefighters stated, we are terrified of the thought of having to go in to provide services. We get along really well, but this legislation will lead to frustration and dissension and will make amalgamation harder. Firefighters are going to be the ones that will have to help people.

Penalizing a group of employees for trying to serve the public–why do you not wish to support people? That is a question for the minister. Why do you not want to support people who are out there working with life-and-death issues? Firefighters cannot understand that. I would say that to the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh). Why do you not understand this? Twenty-six fire stations, paramedics and machines in five of them. Firefighters are already stretched. They do not want to be used that way. We do not want to have to transport people in the back of our truck because there are no contingency plans in place. Essential service legislation could hurt.

Listen to this. You are passing something that could hurt almost as much as a full-blown strike. Those are from people on the front lines. Those are from people who work with people in life-and-limb situations. I would suggest to the member for Assiniboia, fire suppression will suffer if the paramedics go on strike in any way. Why do you want fire suppression to suffer? Why are you passing something because somebody says it is better for the city? Why are you not taking in the interests of the public?

Passing legislation to cover any part of the City of Winnipeg employees is an important step of this Legislature. It should not be done hastily. It should be done with thought. We have co-operated with the government because obviously the public interest is best met with a co-operative approach, but we are bound and determined to convince the government opposite that we are on the public side with this recommendation on binding arbitration as well as the amendments on gender neutral language. Are they going to vote against gender neutral language over there? Are they going to vote against the public safety? [interjection] What did I say? Gender neutral, I thought I said.

A kinder, gentler approach to legislation, of course, and you are going to vote against arbitration if you vote against this amendment. I will tell you, hopefully this thing will be settled, but if there are nine ambulances on the streets on a Friday night and somebody dies because there were not 10, you are responsible. That is why you should vote for our arbitration proposal and look for the better solution in the public interest, not just go with the proposal from the City of Winnipeg, which regrettably is half-baked.

Therefore, our proposal is a full solution to the challenge and therefore should be supported in an act of generosity, in an act of dignity, in an act of leadership by all members of this Legislature.

Let us rise up and represent the public interest, which is our responsibility. Let us rise up and support this amendment.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I do have a few words that I would like to put on the record with respect to the amendment that is being proposed from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). First off, let me pick up when we say let us be generous here, and that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) asked us to be generous. I do not personally have any problem in terms of supporting the amendment.

Having said that, I think that we could do a better job than that in the sense that the best thing that we can do at this stage of the game, I believe, is not proceed ahead, in fact, to just stop the debate, go into Committee of Supply and continue on. The Leader of the Liberal Party was very clear in terms of the sense of urgency just is not there. If you listened to what was being said at the committees, if you listened to what is being said around us, that sense of urgency is not there.

It was interesting in listening to some of the comments, whether it was the member for Transcona, in part from the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The reason why this bill is here today is because it was the Liberal Party that denied leave to allow this bill to pass ultimately last Thursday. We recognized–and I will let the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) know right now–we have no intentions at this stage to grant leave with this particular bill.

If we take a look at what has happened over the last number of days, Madam Speaker, we now have what appears to be a consensus for mediation. Well, if we do have that consensus for mediation, I would suggest to you that it would be a wonderful and a responsible gesture from this Chamber to just stop the debate on this bill. It is just not necessary. I have been given no argument to this date that has convinced me that it is indeed in the public's best interest that this bill actually pass. So if we want to do something in a positive way–and I think that we need to recognize the importance of all of our health care workers, whether it is our paramedics, to our nurses, to our support staff, and I would even extend it to other emergency services, but in particular for our health care people, is that we have to start recognizing the value that they offer and their contributions from the past and start treating them with more respect, that we have to start working with our health care workers.

* (1530)

I was offended greatly, as I know the paramedics and many were offended, when the bill was introduced. We had absolutely zero notification. We were told the day in which it was being brought in that in fact a request had come from the city. No one else knew about it. It was kept in secret. The union itself had no idea that it was coming forward. I believe that there was a better way in dealing with this particular issue, and I also believe very clearly that we can, in fact, what I would classify or many would classify is conduct some damage control on this issue, to restore, to demonstrate that we have faith in our system. That is what I appeal to the government to recognize, and that is that the urgency just is not there, cannot be justified today. We do not need to speed this thing through.

I was very disappointed last Thursday when there were only the two of us, the Liberals, that recognized that fact. Time after time, we see one party who claims to be the protectors of the workers, who claims to be the guardian of our unions and their rights, who claims to be that and has fooled some of them. Some of the unions and the elites of those unions have been fooled by the New Democrats because, when it came right down to it, Madam Speaker, it was the Liberal Party that stopped this bill from passing last Thursday. It is the Liberal Party today that is saying that we are not prepared to allow for leave to have it go into third reading today. The reason for that is because we have confidence, trust and faith in our paramedics as a part of our health care workers. I think that it is critical as legislators that we re-enforce that confidence. Actions speak much louder than words, and that is why, when we were in committee, we listened, we listened very closely to what was being said.

We, in second reading, indicated that we did not have any problem in terms of the bill going into the committee stage, that we were quite open to seeing that bill go into committee stage with the idea that we were going to be listening to the presentations that were being made. I applaud the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) to the extent that he did appear to be sensitive to some of the arguments that were being presented, to the degree in which the Minister of Health came up with an amendment. The amendment would have changed the legislation to allow for it to take effect as opposed to on Royal Assent, on proclamation by the government or the cabinet.

That did make the bill somewhat better, but I can, with all honesty, say to the individuals that it was having a very significant impact, that it did not really demonstrate that the government was really listening to what it is that they were saying because what the government was asking was for the union and representatives and others who are following this issue to have faith and trust in the government not proclaiming this legislation prematurely. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), towards the end of the committee, I thought asked some very excellent questions. What would happen, if in the negotiations that take place prior to the passage of this bill, the union and management on the other side came into an agreement that they would have a binding arbitration or if in fact they came up with an agreement? The Minister of Health said: well, then he would be inclined to or at least entertain withdrawing the legislation.

Well, that is one of the strongest arguments that I have today in terms of saying there is no need for us to pass this legislation, to be even dealing with the amendment today. We do have mediation. We are optimistic that the mediation will in fact resolve it in a positive way, and a part of that positive way could include binding arbitration, which would make this legislation completely useless. If they do come up with binding arbitration through mediation, then the essential service legislation that we are attempting to expedite through this Chamber does not need to be passed.

Then can we see two weeks from now or three weeks from now where the government will be introducing legislation to repeal? I believe that the member for The Maples' questions towards the end of that committee hearing were excellent, and they brought up a point which I would hope that the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) will deal with and give the clarification necessary. I think that is very important in order to have us at least get a better understanding of what the government's real intentions are with respect to this bill.

Madam Speaker, we talk about the process we went through in order to get where we are today, whether it was going through the second reading or the committee stage or now into the report stage that I would suggest to you that what we really need to be doing, as I have indicated and I will continue to expand upon, is the question of the urgency. If we try to be objective on the issue, I think the government is in a position in which it can contact both the city and union representatives to try to address the issue of public safety. We within the Liberal Party are very much concerned about public safety and we have always put that first and that is why we listened to some of the comments that were being put on the record in committee stage from members of the union, in particular, Mr. Fotti.

An Honourable Member: A good man.

Mr. Lamoureux: As the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) points out, "a good man." We do not question that. In fact, as a political party, we recognize that in the consultation that we had, there was virtually no chance of having a walkout over that extended long weekend when we had vacated the premises. Was it a chance? I think that you have to look at it from the perspective of what message it is that we are sending if we are not prepared to do what we believe is right. If you put yourself in the shoes of a paramedic, I think you would get a better assessment of what it is that this particular union is trying to achieve.

* (1540)

When you look at the City of Winnipeg and you see that the City of Winnipeg has those three real areas of urgency, the fire and our police and our paramedics, I find it hard to see how we benefit if you have the paramedics and the firefighters amalgamating, working side by side in many cases, and one gets binding arbitration and the other does not get binding arbitration.

We posed the question, do they feel that that would have an impact on the morale, and the answer to that was, yes, it would in fact have an impact and does have an impact on the morale. So there is a sense of fairness. As I sat inside the committee and I listened and I questioned presenters, another component that I thought was really missed and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) also made reference to it was the lack of representation from City Council. I was never provided any information as to why there was no one from council making presentation, but if we were doing it at the request of the city, it would have been advantageous for us to know from the city councillors as to why they believe in having binding for one and no binding for the other. In fact, I had posed the question in terms of if City Council were to debate the issue of binding arbitration, do we have any idea in terms of how that vote would actually turn out? Do a majority of city councillors not want our paramedics to have binding arbitration? Of course, there was no answer to that. I think that those are the types of questions that would have been valuable to have had answered at the committee stage.

So we need and I ask for the government to be sensitive to the reality of the situation in which our paramedics find themselves in today. The reality, Madam Speaker, in their eyes is very clear. Quite frankly, I understand the situation that they are in and am very sympathetic to it, even though realizing that it is something which the city is responsible for attempting to draw the negotiations to a conclusion.

Recognizing the autonomy that the City of Winnipeg has, we also have a responsibility, and I believe that we need to take that responsibility more seriously. When we see something that on the surface, and I say on the surface because of the lack of presentations from another side at committee stage, where there is a valid argument to be made for binding arbitration that it would be irresponsible of this Legislature not to deal with that issue, especially when you look at it in the sense of the other two services that the City of Winnipeg provides.

This particular amendment would put in binding arbitration. Ideally, what we would like to see is the mediation that will be taking place would bring in the binding arbitration. That is what we would like to see. Failing that, we would like for the government to recognize the situation of the three emergency services that are being provided at that local level and to put themselves at least in part in the shoes of the reality of the day and life of a paramedic. It is not necessarily to go into the discussion of wages or anything of that nature. Rather, what I am referring to is that sense of fairness in terms of the way in which they are treated.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe), I believe, could send a very strong message this afternoon. That message could come in a couple of different ways. One is, at the very least, that the government does not ask for leave to continue to expedite the bill. That would be one way. The second, mine and the Liberal Party's preferred route, is to put a hold on this bill at least until the issue of mediation and the results of the mediation are actually known. I think that would be a responsible thing to do. I do not believe that a majority of city councillors would oppose that, nor do I believe–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I just want to put a few comments on the record about the amendment proposed by the opposition and, of course, the original amendment to the act. I want to remind all members of the Chamber why this was done in the first place, and it was done first and foremost to protect the citizens, primarily of the city of Winnipeg, obviously, and of the province of Manitoba in terms of their very important ambulance services.

What has ended up happening with this issue is because we are also in the midst of collective bargaining, we have ended up with the two issues obviously fairly directly interrelated in many respects, but I think it is important for us to step back and separate them. I certainly encourage members of the Liberal Party to do that, based on some discussions I have had with some of their members.

Madam Speaker, if you look at the history of essential services, it was first introduced back in May of 1996. At that particular point in time, it was applicable only to the provincial civil service. Then a request came from our health facilities to be included in essential services legislation back in 1997, and in April '97 The Essential Services Act was extended to health facilities and to Child and Family Services agencies. That legislation was passed in June of 1997. So the legislation applicable to the province includes hospitals, personal care homes, Child and Family Services agencies, regional health authorities, St. Amant Centre and Pelican Lake Centre. Again, I think everybody agreed on one thing, certainly, at committee, and I think all of the representations agreed to the fact that ambulance services are definitely an essential public service. It was with that view in mind that this original amendment was introduced back on I believe it was May 18 to protect the citizens here in the city of Winnipeg in terms of that very important service.

I also want to outline the procedure because I think the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) does a little bit of a disservice to the sequence of events, that he should recognize that the first request came in on Thursday, May 13, from the City of Winnipeg. We know what Thursday means in terms of the cycle of this Chamber. The first request came in on Thursday. We do not sit on Friday. On Monday, everybody knew that the association was taking a strike vote that day and that night. Obviously, it was prudent to wait and see what came as a result of that particular event, Madam Speaker. We all know that that event did lead to a strike vote from the ambulance association, the paramedics.

So on May 18, a subsequent letter, a second letter came from the mayor of the City of Winnipeg outlining that the city ambulance workers had voted to support strike action and therefore they are in a legal strike position at this time, and in the circumstances, he requested that we initiate the necessary action to amend The Essential Services Act to ensure that essential ambulance services provided by the City of Winnipeg are maintained, and that is the key issue. That is the fundamental issue, Madam Speaker. He went on to say: 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.

* (1550)

So the second letter came on May 18, and that was the day that this amendment was introduced here into this Legislature, Madam Speaker. Subsequently, on May 19, another letter came from the deputy mayor or the acting mayor outlining many of the same concerns. Once again, in her letter, she goes on to talk about that the membership has rejected the city's latest offer, that the City of Winnipeg is prepared to continue discussions with the association in good faith in order to come to a mutually agreeable resolution to the contract issues. She goes on to say: In the meantime, however, it is imperative that the safety and security of our citizens not be put at risk during this process.

That is the key issue, Madam Speaker. That is the reason that the original amendment was put in place, and I think that is the reason that it is so important to continue down the path of dealing with this amendment that is before us here today.

Now, when we talk about the collective bargaining process–and that really was the reason for the subsequent amendment that we introduced at committee, the amendment that indicates that this legislation will not come into effect until it is proclaimed, to certainly do our utmost to not influence the collective bargaining process and to allow the parties to work through that process to hopefully reach an agreement at the collective bargaining table.

Now, what is wrong with the amendment that the opposition have before us, Madam Speaker, is they are proposing that we automatically go to binding arbitration. If you look at the history of binding arbitration in Manitoba, we do have binding arbitration for the firefighters in Manitoba under The Fire Departments Arbitration Act. That was put in place back in the 1970s. I am told that that was done on a unilateral basis by the provincial government of the day. It was not done as a result of a request from both parties, the employer and the employees, to have binding arbitration.

The other group that does have binding arbitration is the City of Winnipeg Police Association. That is covered under The City of Winnipeg Act, and that was put in place in the '80s at the request of both parties. The City of Winnipeg requested that they be included under binding arbitration, and the employees requested that they be included under binding arbitration. At the City of Winnipeg level we also have binding arbitration for a group called WAPSO, which is their middle management group. That is not done through legislation. That is done through agreement by both parties once again. So in each case where we have had binding arbitration, other than the one exception back in the 1970s where it was imposed by the Legislature by the government of the day, the only way that binding arbitration has been introduced is by both parties agreeing to binding arbitration.

We look at the process they are in right now, the City of Winnipeg and the ambulance attendants and the paramedics. They had a conciliation officer in place. As we have said in this House, there still are a number of options available to them to resolve their disputes. They can jointly request a mediation officer be appointed. I understand that has taken place, and I fully expect that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) will be appointing a mediation officer either later today or tomorrow.

They could also jointly request to go to binding arbitration. So at the bargaining table there continue to be a number of avenues available to them to reach an agreement at the bargaining table. The other issue of binding arbitration–we are into binding arbitration today with doctors here in Manitoba. Once again, that was done through mutual agreement. The employer agreed to binding arbitration; the doctors agreed to binding arbitration.

We all recall that during the collective bargaining process with the nurses, the employer offered to go to binding arbitration, and the nurses turned that down. Fortunately, an agreement with the nurses was reached through the mediation process at the bargaining table. So, Madam Speaker, what is wrong with the NDP amendment, or the opposition amendment, is that it is unilaterally imposing binding arbitration when it does not have the support of both parties. It is the heavy hand of government. Again, I think I would just say where we differ from them, it would be no different than a provincial government having the heavy hand of a federal government imposing something on our level of government. I know, and I fully expect, that the opposition would be opposed to that kind of undertaking.

So, if we had both parties, if we had the City of Winnipeg and we had the ambulance service workers and paramedics requesting binding arbitration legislation, obviously that is something that would be looked at to be implemented on that kind of a basis. That is not what we have, and I do not think it is responsible to impose it when you do not have both parties requesting it at this particular point in time, particularly when we can cover essential services under The Essential Services Act, and we also still have the two parties at the table working towards a collective bargaining process.

So that is where we differ from the official opposition, and where we differ from the Liberals is we are not prepared to put the public or the patients at risk here in the City of Winnipeg in terms of the important issue of essential services. That is where I am concerned about the position that they have adopted because I believe that we can address both issues. We can address the issue of protecting the ambulance services for the city of Winnipeg by passing this amendment that we have introduced here, but we can also respect the collective bargaining process through the amendment that we introduced by not proclaiming the legislation unless we reached a point where we had to do it to protect the safety of the public.

So we are striking the right balance between the essential services that we all agree ambulance services are and also respecting the collective bargaining process. That is where I have a great deal of concern with the position of the Liberal Party. In spite of all of the best intentions and all of the discussions and so on, the position they take still puts the public at risk when it comes to that very important service. That is something we do not support doing.

So I think I have covered the key issues that I wanted to mention relative to this issue. We could obviously go on at length certainly dealing with some of the rhetoric from the Leader of the official opposition, but I think at this stage not a great deal will be gained by rising to debate with some of his silly comments about running a first aid kit and so on. I think all Manitobans need to do is look at his performance in government in the 1980s, and that tells the entire tale.

So, once again, I would encourage this House not to support the amendment put forward by the official opposition but to support the resolution as amended that is coming from the committee, from the committee discussion. I would certainly encourage everybody to do that today, with leave, so that we can continue to protect the citizens here in Winnipeg and Manitoba for what we all agree, nobody disputed, we all agree it is an essential service. I do not believe in putting the public at risk and I hope that is the view of everybody here in this Chamber.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to put some comments on the record in support of the amendment brought forward by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). I was privileged to listen to the speeches and the presentations that were made at the public hearings dealing with Bill 27, and they were quite illuminating in what was said.

It is interesting how saying the same statement can mean almost exactly the opposite thing. The Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) in his comments today and through his comments and questions at the committee hearing, as well as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) today in his comments as well as his comments at the public hearings and the members of the official opposition in our comments today and in the public hearings, all stated that we wanted to protect essential services, as did every presenter to the committee hearings last week.

However, I suggest, and I am supported I believe by the firefighters and the paramedics who made presentations at committee, that only the amendment brought forward by the official opposition, the member for Transcona replacing the essential services agreement with binding arbitration actually, in effect, does protect the citizens of the province and it is very simple. It was made very clear by the city presentation at the committee hearings last week.

Mr. Shoemaker in response, I believe, to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) stated that, and I do not have Hansard in front of me so I cannot quote specifically, but he made it very clear that the number of ambulances that would be on the road that would be available to serve the people of Winnipeg and some outlying areas as well in the case of a strike, in the case of Bill 27 being implemented, would be by definition less than 100 percent. He did not say how much less than 100 percent. There have been figures as low as half and figures as high as 90 percent of the ambulances and the staff needed to staff those ambulances would be deemed to be essential services.

* (1600)

Mr. Shoemaker was very clear that there would be less than 100 percent, i.e., less than currently 10 ambulances on the streets of Winnipeg should the essential services agreement legislation be needed to be enforced, and the reason Mr. Shoemaker gave that figure was that he said that it was essential that the paramedics, the staff of the ambulances, not lose their right to strike. If 100 percent of the ambulance attendants, the paramedics in the city of Winnipeg were declared essential, then by definition they would lose their right to strike. So Mr. Shoemaker admitted that the public in the case of a labour dispute that was unresolvable under the current legislation would not be protected to the level that it has come to expect. I think it is critical that we recognize that. Mr. Shoemaker does not necessarily represent the ultimate employer-management position.

My understanding is that the management, the City Council or the city management and then, by extension, City Council, could under essential services legislation deem that every single member of the paramedic employees was deemed essential and thereby they would lose the right to strike, so thereby they would lose at both ends. They would not have any ultimate bargaining tool that unions have, by definition, in the collective bargaining process, which is ultimately the right to strike. They would not have that. On the other hand, they would be at the beck and call of the management who would determine how many and when they would be declared essential.

So it is a lose-lose situation for the workers of the city, and it is also a lose-lose situation for the people of the city. So I do not understand why the minister and the government say that their bill, Bill 27, unamended, if it remains unamended by our amendment, protects the population of the city of Winnipeg, because it cannot possibly do so.

The minister also said this afternoon in his comments that this legislation respects the collective bargaining process. Well, Madam Speaker, it does not. It has the potential for completely gutting the collective bargaining process because, by definition, the collective bargaining process gives management certain rights and the union certain rights. I think members opposite find the whole concept of workers actually having rights to be anathema. They do not believe in it basically, and whenever they have the opportunity, either openly or by stealth they attempt to reduce the rights and capabilities of the workers of the province of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said–basically his argument was that we do not need this legislation because there is no sense of urgency, there is no sense of emergency to this, and we need to let the process unwind. He has faith in the collective bargaining process and the two sides being able to come forward and reach an agreement. Well, I would suggest that at least two things, one on the side of management and one on the side of the unions, say that we have a potentially very serious problem here that we do need to address.

On the side of management is the letter that was written on May 13 by the mayor and a second letter that was virtually identical written by the deputy mayor on May 18 requesting changes to the essential services legislation because the collective bargaining process had broken down. Now, Madam Speaker, that does not sound like things are going along as they should.

Since then, we have not had much positive news on that mediation front or conciliation. It would appear that the two sides still are far apart. So I would suggest that the management, having written those two letters, the urgency that they see does not bode well for the collective bargaining process.

On the side of the workers, the workers took a strike vote. Now, taking a strike vote does not mean that the workers are going to go out. It just gives an indication to the workers and to management and in this case to the citizens of the city of Winnipeg and all of those who are under the responsibility of the ambulances and paramedics that there is the potential for, and the union has given their negotiating team a mandate, a strike mandate. That strike vote that was taken was overwhelming. Madam Speaker, 131 members voted. Now, there are only 135 members of the paramedics. I am not sure what the exact percentage is, but it is way, way, way–it is in the high 90 percent approval for a strike vote.

That is an overwhelming problem for the collective bargaining process; the one, on the one hand, of management saying we are in a crisis, and on the other hand, the union saying we are in a critical situation. So the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I believe, is erroneous in his reading of the situation when he says that we are not in a crisis.

He also says that we have confidence in the paramedics. I do not believe anyone in this Chamber or anyone who came to the hearings has less than the utmost confidence in the paramedics. The paramedics want to do what is in the public's best interest. The paramedics want binding arbitration. The paramedics do not want to be in a situation where they feel that they have to choose between a living wage and good benefits and all of those things that we say through the collective bargaining process are the rights of workers in this city and this province on the one hand, with the public safety on the other. That is why it is essential that this amendment brought forward by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) be approved by this House, because only if you go to binding arbitration do you protect the rights of the workers. The United Nations and the International Labour Organization and many other organizations throughout the world say that rights of workers are essential to be protected, whether this government believes that or not.

The only way you can protect the rights of the workers, in this case, the paramedics, and protect the citizens of the city of Winnipeg, is through binding arbitration.

The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), I was listening to his comments earlier this afternoon, and again I do not have Hansard, but what I heard the member for St. Norbert speak, I think, he sort of was mixing things up just a bit. My sense of what the member for St. Norbert said, and I will check with Hansard when it is available, is that he was putting binding arbitration in opposition to negotiation. I think this is something that the government has mixed up all along, whether on purpose or accidentally.

Binding arbitration or essential services legislation is the end result. They are not in opposition to or in place of negotiations. You go to binding arbitration or a strike or an essential services legislation only after the collective bargaining process has failed. So we are talking here today not about the collective bargaining process itself, which is still underway, although it is kind of rocky; we are talking about what do we do when and if that process breaks down.

* (1610)

I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, as I have said earlier, the only way to effectively ensure the safety of the people of Winnipeg and provide for workers' rights is to go to binding arbitration. Now, the government has said on several occasions they are only responding to a request from the city. They are only listening to the city. Yes, they are listening to the city, but, in this sense, they are listening to one partner in a negotiation. They are listening to and responding to the management side, not to the public interest or their workers' best interests.

I do not think we should be surprised by this. The government has never shown itself to be a fan of or in favour of workers' rights. We can go through 11 years of bad labour negotiations and bad labour relations, but let us be very clear, the government was asked to intervene on the part of one partner to a labour impasse, was asked to intervene quickly in a collective bargaining situation.

We on this side of the House, in putting this forward, this amendment, are not saying, in effect, to intervene in the collective bargaining process, not at all. As a matter of fact, we are the champions of collective bargaining and think that in most cases it can work very well. What we are saying is that, if the two sides are unable to come to a collective agreement together, agreeing together, if that is not able to happen, then the best dispute resolution mechanism is binding arbitration, because that takes it out of the political arena. It takes it out of the media. It puts the two sides together with an arbitrator, and it says: you guys, both sides, sit down, and let us talk about it.

We have example after example of where binding arbitration has worked. We have had example after example of where essential services agreements have not worked and are not working because we have seen too often where management decides that 100 percent or, in some cases in the health care system, more than 100 percent of the workers are deemed essential.

In some situations in health care today, there are more hospital workers on the floors of hospitals under essential services legislation than under regular operations, so we do not believe that this is the way to go. Yes, paramedics are essential; they agree, we agree. But the way to ensure that 100 percent of the paramedics and the ambulances are on call when they need to be is through binding arbitration, not through amendments to The Essential Services Act.

Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to say that we are talking in terms here of 10 ambulances, and everybody agrees that 10 ambulances are not even enough. What are we going to do when the Pan Am Games come to town? What are we going to do? We need more than 10 ambulances.

That is another issue, but it does impact on this legislation because if this legislation is not amended and the city deems less than 100 percent of their workers to be essential, which, if they are going to follow Mr. Shoemaker's comments at committee, they will do. That means not only are we when we are at full capacity understaffed and underserviced, but we are if the essential services legislation comes into effect unamended, we are going to be even in more trouble.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think we need to take a sober second thought, a sober second look at this situation, put in the amendment to allow for binding arbitration or to require binding arbitration, put the city paramedics on a par with the paramedics and the firefighters and the police officers in Brandon and Thompson and the firefighters and police officers in Winnipeg and the teachers throughout the province, all of whom are essential services, all of whom provide vital functions for us, and all of whom, with the exemption of the paramedics in Winnipeg, are covered under binding arbitrations. It is only fair and democratic and appropriate and in the public's best interest that they all remain equal. That is why we support this amendment today. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address this issue, a very important and very good amendment made by my colleague the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), our critic for Labour.

The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), the member for Transcona, myself and the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) had the privilege of sitting in on the committee which considered this important issue, and I think that it is a matter of principle that we are dealing with here. It is essentially the question of the consequences of a government that failed to take action to provide the kind of resources necessary for our health care system so that we now have an ambulance system in Winnipeg that is seriously stretched beyond its reasonable limits.

I bring to the House's attention the remarks of Mr. Shoemaker, who in committee responded to questions about delays in answering calls and indicated, as did Janice Johnson, that we are now looking at substantial delays because ambulances are frequently taking acutely ill people from one hospital to another looking for an emergency department that is able to accept a critically ill patient.

I recall that one of my constituents, who is a nurse in Victoria Hospital, told me that a couple of weeks ago there were 52 people awaiting admission and that the emergency and holding observation beds, the hallways–the entire emergency department was simply at the point that they could not accept any more patients.

Naturally, then, an ambulance had picked up a patient that would normally go to Victoria is out of service for a much longer time than necessary because the ambulance drives to Grace or to St. Boniface or Health Sciences Centre or even Seven Oaks or Concordia to take the patient who is acutely ill to receive medical care in a department that is open.

When we look at the question then of how essential services would operate in this situation, we have to understand that the context of that question is an ambulance system that has already agreed to be understaffed and stretched beyond its reasonable limits. Specifically, the ambulance attendants told us, and this was also confirmed by management of the city, that just on a regular day, an ordinary day in the city of Winnipeg, it takes 20 percent of staff on overtime just to meet the regular needs of the ambulance service to staff it at a regular level. That does not count any additional staff who book off sick or who are injured. Just to run the service requires 20 percent overtime on a regular basis.

Now, what is one to say about essential services in that kind of situation? How is it conceivable that the essential service will be less than 100 percent of a service which has admitted to be inadequate? We were told that for a city of our size and population dispersal we need 13 ambulances; we have 10. The minimum service level, the acceptable service level, is 13, three more than we have now.

If the essential services agreement is applied, what level will be provided? Now Mr. Shoemaker said it would be less than the current number of cars that are on the street at any one time. He said that in committee. However, to the press in the hallway, he said that his estimate was that it would be at least nine out of 10 would be required, would be deemed to be essential. The tenth, of course, is one that is funded currently by the province because the city is not funding even 10 ambulances. Then later he amended that and said, well, perhaps it might even be one or two of the cars that are also on call during busy periods.

Essentially what Mr. Shoemaker was saying that 100 percent of the workers would be deemed to be essential. At which point one asks: how are they then to have any reasonable ability to bargain fairly because one of the rights we are talking about respecting in this province is the right of management and the right of labour to work together through maybe a difficult process but to work together to reach a fair solution and a fair settlement? Essentially, I think, as legislators, as citizens, that we have to recognize that, if you take that right away from either side in an unfair way, then you set up an unbalanced and unstable labour-management situation. At the end of the day, it usually, under this government, is labour that has their rights unfairly affected, and that, I believe, would be the case if this legislation passed unamended. Essentially, we are saying to an essential service: you are, yes, essential, but you have no right to seek a solution to your problems by any other means. So all of you have to work, and you could have a theoretical strike, but you cannot do anything that would actually bring any pressure to bear on your employer.

* (1620)

No one wants a strike. Certainly, this side of the House is proposing an amendment that would provide all of the essential services and give these workers the same dignity, the same rights, the same respect for the importance of their service as our firefighters and our police.

Madam Speaker, we also heard from Mr. Shoemaker that he was in the process of integrating the ambulance paramedic service and the Fire Department. He certainly agreed that the Fire Department should be covered by binding arbitration, and, obviously, the police are covered as well. So it seems to us only reasonable that, if you are integrating two services and you agree that those two services are both essential, and you agree that you want to respect the process of bargaining, then you give them the same rights. The right in this case is the right to binding arbitration, if that becomes the only resolution mechanism that remains.

We also learned in committee that the firefighters of Brandon and Thompson had access to binding arbitration, and, in that case, the ambulance services of those two cities are part of the fire department. So we have ambulance attendants, some of them trained to a very high level, to a paramedic level, and others trained to a lower level, who, in the cities of Thompson and Brandon, are not only deemed to be worthy of protection, but they are deemed to have access under The Fire Departments Arbitration Act to binding arbitration in the event of a labour dispute that cannot be resolved by a normal bargaining process. So by what reasonable criteria do we make a distinction between Thompson, Brandon and Winnipeg?

Winnipeg surely has the same needs of citizens and it has the same need for high-quality ambulance services. It has the same need for highly trained and skilled staff, but apparently, according the government, the people of Brandon and Thompson have protection for 100 percent of their services 100 percent of the time. The people of Winnipeg are not to be granted that same protection. They can only be granted protection of some lesser level. Is it 50 percent? Of course, the question then is: which quadrants of the city, which neighbourhoods, are going to be without ambulance services if the intention of this legislation is, as the Minister of Health has told us it is, that is to allow for some service level less than 100 percent? That is his understanding of the intention. What neighbourhoods in the city? Will it be my neighbourhood, will it be the neighbourhood of the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer)? Will it be the neighbourhood of the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), the neighbourhood of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that is without ambulance services, as a consequence of this government's action?

No one was willing to answer that question, and so the position of the opposition and my honourable friend for Transcona who moved the amendment is that we want all the citizens of Winnipeg to have the ambulance services that they need. We recognize that what they have now is not sufficient, so every single one of those services is clearly essential because it is admitted by all parties that we have inadequate services at present. We want at least that level of service to be maintained through any labour dispute. We want there not to be the possibility of a strike, which causes any level of ambulance service to be withdrawn from the citizens of our city, and we want the workers to be treated with the same dignity and the same respect that is accorded to our police and our firefighters.

We think it is only reasonable that the government would see the wisdom of the amendment that is now before us, which would encourage people to bargain, encourage people to bargain responsibly, which does not take away the possibilities of conciliation and mediation. In fact, we have just been notified that mediator, Mr. Teskey, whom I know as a lawyer myself, has been appointed, and we welcome that appointment. That is a very good appointment, and we look forward to Mr. Teskey's report. I believe he will do his utmost to bring the parties a responsible and fair settlement for both parties. What we are simply saying is that in the event that this does not happen–we hope that it does–that the citizens of our city have a right to adequate ambulance and emergency response services and that the government's legislation essentially puts that right at risk, puts at jeopardy for my neighbours, for my colleagues' neighbours, the ability to have the response that we have now.

I want to underline for the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) that I am sure he is aware that Mr. Shoemaker said and the ambulance people have said: what we have now is not adequate. We have response times that, because of the backlog in emergency rooms, because of the inadequate funding of this government and support of this government to our emergency services at the hospitals, we already have an ambulance system that will not meet our needs. Yet the legislation put forward by the government in haste, without careful thought, would put those services even more at risk because, let me underline this, there is no agreement that overtime can be compelled in the event of a strike. There is nothing in the current agreement between the ambulance attendants, the paramedics, and the City of Winnipeg which makes overtime compulsory. There is no compulsory overtime in this agreement.

As I have said earlier in my remarks, just to put the ambulances on the street every day requires 20 percent of the staffing to be voluntary overtime. So by what mechanism would the city be able to field more than six or seven ambulances without compulsory overtime? By what mechanism could they access compulsory overtime if it is not in the collective agreement now, because the collective agreement that is in place now governs what happens during a strike?

The Minister of Health I think has got himself in a very difficult situation, because he is putting forward a bill that by definition will remove at least 20 percent of the current ambulance services from the City of Winnipeg. Furthermore, the plans of the city apparently are to require the Fire Department to respond to calls that might normally be taken by ambulance staff. Perhaps the minister has forgotten that the Fire Department is also a union and it may have some difficulty with taking over work that is normally done by ambulance attendants.

By his hasty action, the Minister of Health and this government, this Premier have put at risk the lives, the well-being of the citizens of Winnipeg. They have inflamed a situation which they ought to be calming rather than inflaming, and they have put forward legislation that is guaranteed to reduce the level of services below an already unacceptably low level in the event that this labour dispute is settled by Mr. Teskey in his role as mediator.

I support strongly the amendments of my honourable colleague. They provide dignity to the workers, they provide assurance of service to the citizens of Winnipeg, they provide lots of incentive for both parties to settle fairly at the table under the guidance of Mr. Teskey. I think the legislation as amended would serve as a very useful support to the democratic process that we all want to support. I hope that all members of the House will support these very appropriate and essential amendments.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is the report stage amendment to Bill 27 proposed by the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Do you wish to have the motion read?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: 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 Nays have it.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Order, please. The question before the House is the proposed amendment to Bill 27.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 15, Nays 28.

Madam Speaker: The amendment is accordingly defeated.

* (1640)

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services essentiels), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee of Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would ask if there would be leave of the House to have third reading of this bill.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed with third reading of this bill?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, with the waiving of private members' hour today, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), that this House now resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.