Manitoba Hansard — 31 May 1999 (Sitting 35, 36th Legislature, 5th Session)

36-5-35

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLIX No. 35- 1:30 p.m., Monday, May 31, 1999

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James DRIEDGER, Albert DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen FRIESEN, Jean GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY,Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley, Hon. ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin, Hon. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River St. Boniface Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C.

P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

1927 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, May 31, 1999 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Comm ittee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Flood Conditions Hon.

Frank Pitura (Acting Minister of Natural Resources): I have a ministerial state ment on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings). Unfortunately, heavy rain again struck the Souris River watershed over the weekend with 25 to 35 millimetres of precipitation reported in most regions of the watershed including adjoining areas of Saskatchewan and North Dakota. The additional precipitation will cause the tributaries of the Souris River to rise somewhat but will only slow the rate of fall of the river.

The additional heavy rain will also delay the drying of flooded fields and saturated soils in the watershed by a week to 10 days. Meanwhile, the Pembina River received close to 25 millimetres of rain in the area from Turtle Mountain to Rock Lake. This will increase tributary flows but will only reduce the rate of fall in the flooded area from Rock Lake to Swan Lake. Some flooding of lower areas is likely from Swan Lake to Windygates. The Assiniboine River watershed down stream from St. Lazare received almost 25 millimetres of rain on the weekend.

This additional precipitation will reduce the rate of fall of the Assiniboine from Miniota to Portage Ia Prairie, but rises are not expected. As well, substantial rainfall on the weekend in the Red River watershed from Grand Forks to Emerson is likely to reduce the rate of fall of the Red River in Manitoba during the next 10 days. Weather conditions remain unstable. Unfortunately, the weather forecast is calling for further precipitation later this week. Thank you. Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I want to thank the Minister for Government Services for presenting us with this update on the flood conditions in several parts of our province on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources. So I thank him for updating us. Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House join with the minister in wishing all the best to those communities lying along the Souris River watershed and the Assiniboine River watershed, those people living along the Pembina River who are going through a very tough spring.

Also, we want to wish well the farmers who are still trying to scratch their way onto the land, trying to find some places on their quarter sections that are dry enough to actually get some seeding done. We are hoping that Mother Nature will co-operate with their efforts to get out and do their seeding this spring.

This presented a number of problems for farmers, in terms of deadlines for crop insurance, which we are hoping the government can move on, and also it presents some problems and some challenges for this government to work co operatively with the local officials to co-ordinate the immediate drainage of farm areas in the southwest and other parts of our province which right now are experiencing very wet, saturated conditions.

1928 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31 , 1999 So we thank the minister for this update, and we hope for all the best in these areas, in these watersheds that are very wet this spring. Thank you, Madam Speaker. * (1 335) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information, 1999-2000, for the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Hospital Authority Stretcher Services-Patient Transfers Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, at committee we heard about the stress on ambulance staff in the city of Winnipeg, the tremendous pressure a number of people working in our ambulance services are under. Mr. Fotti has written the government about another potential safety and health concern in that the WHA is apparently now using stretcher car companies to transport patients. I would like to ask the minister: are stretcher car companies being utilized? I would like to ask the Premier: are stretcher car companies now being utilized to transport urgent patients in Winnipeg? Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware that recently the City of Winnipeg indicated that they wanted to be out of the interfacility transfer within 90 days, the transfers between hospitals in Winnipeg and the transfers from the airport to hospitals in Winnipeg. The WHA has agreed to have discussions about that important issue with the City of Winnipeg in terms of how that can be done and the most effective means. Obviously, there are situations where ambulances are required to transport patients.

There can also be situations where ambulances are not necessarily required, and there can be a more cost-effective way to provide that transport for the patient. So those discussions are ongoing right now between the WHA and the City of Winnipeg. I think a time line of 90 days was set on those discussions, and we will wait for them to conclude. Mr. Doer: Well, Madam Speaker, maybe we need less than seven vice-presidents of the WHA and more ambulances dealing with urgent patients in Winnipeg. The definition of "urgent patients" is acute deterioration not anticipated but intervention may be required en route.

Is the minister now saying or the Premier now agreeing that it is the government policy to allow urgent patients to be transported in Winnipeg by stretcher car companies, not by ambulances? Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, we are saying no such thing. In fact, one of the reasons given by the City of Winnipeg to want to enter these negotiations with the WHA is the whole issue that they believe that it can free up two ambulances from within their existing comple ment to provide the more urgent services to individuals in the city of Winnipeg.

So the view of the city is certainly to provide additional resources for the urgent need by taking advantage of the opportunity to transport patients who do not require an ambulance-type vehicle or ambulance service to transfer between facilities or between the airport and facilities. So it is clearly being done with a view to enhancing the capacity and services of urgent requirements here in the city of Winnipeg Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the people on the front lines, Mr. Fotti has written the minister and indicated that stretcher car companies are transporting patients under urgent category.

I would like to ask the minister: will he investigate this concern, and will he clearly state that it is absolutely unacceptable for stretcher car companies to transport urgent patients in Manitoba? Our loved ones deserve to have ambulance services and trained ambulance staff transporting urgent patients with the adequate training and equipment. I would ask the minister to take charge of this issue and ensure that that is happening at the community level. Mr. Stefanson: I will do just that.

I will look into this issue in further detail because the whole premise and basis of it is exactly what I have outlined in this House. The discussions between

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1929 the City of Winnipeg and the WHA are on the basis of freeing up two ambulance units within the city of Winnipeg to meet urgent require ments in the city of Winnipeg and to transport patients between facilities and between the airport and facilities where a more cost-effective way can do it without in any way jeopardizing the safety or care for that patient. That is the fundamental principle behind any changes. Those changes have not taken place. That discussion is ongoing.

I think a 90-day time frame was put on those negotiations between the City of Winnipeg and the WHA. But certainly the fundamental objective is where an ambulance is the most appropriate type of vehicle that should be providing services, that should be done. If it can be done where it is merely a transfer on a nonurgent or a non emergent basis where there is no risk whatsoever to the patient, then I think we would all agree that we should be looking at doing that in the most cost-effective way possible. *

(1340) Rehabilitation Centre Mice Infestation Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, it is very unfortunate in our health care system, when, at a public forum on Saturday attended by representatives from all three parties, a woman had to stand up and ask the representative of the Conservative Party what the government will do about vermin infestation at the rehab centre in the city of Winnipeg.

You know, it is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, we have millions of dollars for executives in regional health authorities; we have $500,000 for an advertising campaign, and a woman has to stand up at a public meeting and ask the minister what are you going to do about the vermin at the rehab centre. Now I under stand that there has been exterminators there this morning as a result. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question. Mr.

Chomiak: My question to the minister is: why does it take months for people to get a response to an issue like this when the government has hundreds of thousands of dollars for advertising and millions of dollars for executives, but a woman has to stand up and go public with an issue like this, Madam Speaker? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I usually give the member for Kildonan more credit for doing some research, and I know he has been on the phone this morning.

That is why I am surprised with the tone and nature of his question, because this issue, the issue of mice being discovered at the rehab centre at HSC, occurred over a month ago. It is, I am told, as a result of the construction that is taking place on the facility. In fact, it is related, I believe, to the construction for the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, some $47-million construction. Immediately the HSC took action. They called in exterminators on contract to deal with the issue. They have continued to work with the exterminators.

I have been told that in the events of the last week there has been no evidence of mice of any nature. So, again, I am told it relates to the construction, the degree of activity taking place on the site, and immediately upon being made aware of it, I am told, the HSC took the appropriate steps to deal with the issue. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how is it that after 11 years of Conservative government, our health facilities can deteriorate to such a state that we have to raise the issue of fruit flies in the operating room, a woman had to go to a public meeting to raise the high profile and get exterminators in today to deal with the issue of vermin at the Health Sciences Centre? Will the minister not recognize the deteriorating conditions in our health care system and outline for us how they deal with these procedures so people do not have to have their loved ones experience what this woman's loved ones experienced? Mr.

Stefanson: Again, Madam Speaker, I have outlined for the member for Kildonan what I am told was the sequence of events. When it came to the attention of HSC, as a result of extensive construction that is taking place onsite, they took immediate action to deal with the situation. They called in exterminators. They are dealing with the situation; they are monitoring the

I930 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 situation. The reality is, unfortunately, in our climate in our province, whenever we have activities taking place in our homes, in our buildings, and so on, this is one of the risks that we all face, and we are all well aware of. But I am told that immediate action was taken to deal with the situation at HSC. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to table in this House an outline for the members of this Legislature and the public, what the conditions are in the facilities in Winnipeg and around the province with respect to infestations.

Will the minister not agree that it is, in fact, a result of the deterioration and the failure of this government to upgrade our facilities and the broken promises for the past II years? Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, again, I usually give the member for Kildonan more credit for the research he does on an issue and his appreciation and understanding of why things happen. I have outlined for him on two occasions here this afternoon what happened in this particular case at the HSC as a result of significant-and I hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) suggesting rats and so on.

Again, it is typical desperation on their part to completely exaggerate, overstate, not come here with facts or whatever, even though I know the member for Kildonan this morning was provided with some information, was provided with some facts, again, to come to this House and try to scare people. That is classic time and time and time again. Those members opposite try to do just that. I say shame to them, shame. *

(1345) Point of Order Mr. Chomiak: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister knows full well that it is against Beauchesne to impute motives to a member of this Legislature. I would like to remind the minister that it was we who raised the issue of Holiday Haven in this Chamber, and they denied it. We raised the issue of fruit flies, and they denied it.

To this very point, a woman was forced to stand up at a public forum and say why has nothing been done for months about vermin at the rehab centre, and the representative for the Conservative Party said that is an operational issue, that is an operational issue. So we said we would raise it on their behalf for the people of Manitoba, as we have done for 11 years. I ask you to call the minister to order and not impute motives to members on this side of the House who have been right 99.9 percent of the time. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I would remind all honourable members when stating a point of order, it is not a time for debate. It is a time to put what the violation of the rule is on the record. The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order. Mr. Stefanson: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not believe the member for Kildonan has a point of order whatsoever. He is correct that this matter was raised, I am told, at a forum, a public forum on Saturday at which he was in attendance.

I am also told this morning that he had discussions with officials, which he should be doing when an issue is brought to his attention. I would expect him to follow up on it and so on. Again, various information has been provided in terms of what is being done at Health Sciences Centre, and again that is the appropriate thing to do. But to come here and try to exaggerate a situation and start to make all kinds of accusations, that are not the case, from his Leader and others across is absolutely irresponsible. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. In his comments on the point of order raised by the member for Kildonan, the Minister of Health reinforced, once again, the fact that his

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1931 comments were unparliamentary when he said that the member for Kildonan was exaggerating. The fact is that you have a situation where you have vermin in a medical facility, we have had fruit flies in operating rooms, we have raised these issues, and after 11 years for this Minister of Health to get up and accuse us of scaring people, I would say to this Minister of Health, what scares people is having rats and fruit flies in our medical facilities. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, I will indeed take the matter under advisement and report back to the Chamber. *** Madam Speaker: [interjection] New question? The honourable member for Kildonan, with a new question. Urban Shared Services Corporation CEO Resignation Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Yes, Madam Speaker, it has just been brought to my attention, and I will ask the minister to confirm whether or not in fact the CEO of the Urban Shared Services has resigned. Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, on May 28 a news release was put out by Urban Shared Services: Management Change Announced. It is a one-page release that I can certainly table here in this House today. I just have one copy, but: "Urban Shared Services Corporation today announced that Joe Sheil, Chief Executive Officer has tendered his resignation.

He has agreed to continue in his present position until July 16, 1999 to provide the USSC Board of Directors time to implement the necessary transition and to incorporate changes that may be required." There is then a comment from the chair of the board. I will not read the entire release, but I will certainly table it here right now. *

(1350) Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister can use this opportunity and can advise this House whether or not the resignation of the chief officer only points to the fact that this entire episode is a failure on the part of the government, the whole frozen food initiative, and whether or not the government will use this opportunity to perhaps rethink the entire concept for the benefit of all Manitobans with respect to frozen food. Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, no, I do not agree with the

preamble from the member opposite. I have tabled a copy of the release that outlines some of the rationale Mr. Sheil is moving on. I also have a copy of some additional correspondence from him. It was not a simple decision for him. However, for personal and career reasons, he feels that it is important to explore other opportunities. In terms of dealing with all of the staff and the board, Mr. John Bulman, the chairman of the corporation, went on to say that in the weeks ahead it is important we work together to ensure USSC continues to move forward through a smooth transition and on to further development.

Because the operation is already running smoothly, I do not foresee any operational problems in the near future. So, again, we have a competent board in place. It is a board representing all nine hospitals plus citizen representation. I am sure that they will be moving forward to ultimately fill Mr. Sheil's very important position. CEO Resignation-Severance Package Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: will the minister table in this House, given our experience with Connie Curran and other hiring fiascos of the government, the severance package and all that information related to Mr. Sheil, and his contract, because it is public money and we deserve to know? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Well, Madam Speaker, I will certainly look into that entire matter and return with as much information as I can. The member knows we are in Estimates process. We have been in Estimates process the last two weeks.

I believe we will be back into it probably again today.

1932 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 We can certainly get into this issue in more detail, but I will look into that entire matter and provide as much information on the ultimate final settlement with Mr. Sheil as I can. Western Opinion Research Government Grant Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, on Thursday of last week the Premier of this province shamefully blamed his staff for failing to put out a press release in regard to a $100,000 grant to Western Opinion Research.

There is a file box full of press releases put out during the time his staffperson was on maternity leave-hundreds of them. Will this Premier finally take responsibility for the fact that no press release was ever intended, and not blame his staff in front of the media? Shame. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I know that the member opposite is hungry for any kind of publicity that he can get. He sits there in the back row languishing away. So- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, Beauchesne 417, deal with the matter raised, and also a member's answer should not impute motives. The minister clearly is imputing motives. I am not hungry for press, I am hungry for justice. Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I would not want to hurt the feelings of the member opposite, so if there was anything in what I said about languishing that imputed motives, I will withdraw that. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister, and that deals with the point of order. *** *

(1355) Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to complete his response. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that governments have to have terms and conditions for policies that apply to anybody who might apply for support. But what really irks the member opposite is the fact that we are creating jobs in this province, that jobs are being created because of the policies of this government. We have given similar forgivable loans to 14 different call centre operations in this province. Overall, the call centre industry has created over 8,000 jobs since 1990.

I might say that the smallest amount of public support of all of those 14 operations was to Western Opinion Research. They are creating 78 jobs. We are proud of our record of job creation. It is only the duke of despair over there who would complain about job creation, opportunity creation and a better economy for this province. Only the member for Crescentwood and his colleagues would continually try and paint it black. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, only the Premier after apologizing earlier on in his question would again break our rules.

It is not parliamentary to call someone by any name of that nature. Members should be called by their constituency names. I would ask the First Minister if maybe he can apologize one more time. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson did indeed have a point of order. All members in this Chamber are honourable members. I would therefore ask that the honourable First Minister withdraw his comments. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I would certainly withdraw the offensive comments. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister. *** Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would confirm that Mr.

Jules Benson

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1933 was the head of Treasury Board at the time of this grant, and will he tell the House what the communication strategy required on the Treasury Board submission was? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I do not have the Treasury Board submission, and I am not on Treasury Board, so I could not confirm either one of those assertions.

The member opposite knows because I recall him coming to Treasury Board inadequately prepared, as he always was, and I remember him coming to Treasury Board in the days when he remained a politically appointed public servant from the New Democratic days, so he knows that the process is that the board makes the decision, not the secretary of Treasury Board. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the Premier simply table for this House a certified copy of the Treasury Board submission showing the communication strategy that was required for this grant? Simple question. Will he do it? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, Orders-in Council are public information. That is the basis on which he has the information that he has parlayed into all of these questions. Treasury Board submissions are not public information and so I am unable to- Some Honour able Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. *

(1400) Political Donations Out-of-Province Campaigns Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. According to the documents that I will table, the Manitoba NDP donated $3,200 to a campaign of a Nova Scotia NDP candidate, Errol Gaum. Can the Premier indicate whether or not these types of political donations are illegal in Manitoba, given that 75 percent tax rebate is offered to Manitobans who donate money to political parties with the expectation that that money would be used in Manitoba? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): I am not certain as to whether or not there is any breach of the law, but I am prepared to refer this to the Elections Manitoba people for review. Clearly this borders on ethical conduct that is questionable, given that the- An Honourable Member: You are an expert on ethics, Gary. Mr. Filmon: The New Democrats think it is funny, Madam Speaker, to take money that was legitimately donated to them in Manitoba, for which a tax receipt was obviously issued, and then to contribute it to an out-of-province campaign.

I know that we do not have an Election Finances Act in Manitoba that covers municipal-level candidates, and they have been using the act to provide for municipal and federal coverage in the past. I know that the members opposite will use any loophole that they can for their purposes. I will refer the matter to Elections Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: We in the Liberal Party do not believe that it is indeed appropriate, and we would ask the Premier to make it very clear if he believes this type of donation on the part of a political party is in fact appropriate. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I do not find it appropriate, but I cannot say at this point whether or not it is legal. So that is why I will refer the matter to Elections Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: Given the importance of perception, will the Premier bring forth legislation to assure Manitoba taxpayers are not subsidizing political activities in other provinces through the Manitoba political tax credit? Mr. Filmon: That is an excellent suggestion. will take the matter under advisement and determine what course of action is necessary in order to accomplish that. Crop Insurance Late Seeding Deadline Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): My question is for the Premier. I want to table a letter from Mr. Clifford Kutzan, who is the reeve of the R.M. of Grandview. Mr. Kutzan and his council are

1934 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 dealing with problems in the Grandview area having to do with excessive amounts of moisture. Last fall the area received almost 40 inches of rain and another seven inches of rain this spring. Their land is saturated. Can the Premier explain whether his government is prepared to extend the crop insurance deadline for the farmers in this area, in Grandview and Gilbert Plains, so that they can have a chance to put in their crops this year, and can he indicate whether he is prepared to waive the late seeding penalty? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Subsequent to the flood on the Red River in 1997, Crop Insurance made available an opportunity for late seeding beyond the crop insurance deadline date. My understanding is that will provide up to 80 percent coverage for that circumstance. Obviously, our first preference is that the weather conditions change for the better and that all of the people get the opportunity to seed their crops and to harvest their crops this year. We believe that the farm producers would prefer that option too.

I remember very well in this House, back in 1997, when members opposite were talking about extension of those deadlines and urging all of those things. We had something like a half million acres at risk at that time in the Red River Valley. In the end, it was, I believe, less than 3,000 acres that did not get seeded. So our first preference, and I would think the first preference of the farm producers, would be to get that seeding done, and that is certainly what we are all hoping for. AIDA Program Assistance Criteria-Flooding Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, given that the first crop deadline is later this week and that some of these farmers are just getting on their fields today, can the First Minister indicate whether the AIDA process can be speeded up to help these farmers at Grandview and Gilbert Plains, farmers who are in a real bind this week? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eons), I know, was in touch with the federal officials after discussions last week that we had in cabinet.

I understand that the federal Minister Vanclief was favourably disposed towards doing whatever he could to support our efforts to support our farmers here. Final details about all of these things are not able to be announced at the moment as the federal officials are going through the various possible opportunities that they have to address the situation. I do know that I heard this morning the federal member of Parliament, Rick Borotsik, talking about his discussions with Minister Vanclief and Minister Goodale.

There is a desire on the part of everybody concerned to exercise good will and to try and make available programs to support the farmers throughout the western part of our province and the southern part of our province, who are obviously having difficulty with extreme moisture conditions that are unusual, if not unprecedented, in recent times in the area. So we will certainly work co operatively towards that goal.

As the member knows, this government, in anticipating that AIDA would not produce immediate payouts, brought in loans and loan guarantees to try and ensure that farmers did have money available to get seeding in this year. We obviously have a concern then about bridging over to next year if some of them end up not being able to seed at all, which of course nobody hopes for but is a possibility that is being faced by some, particularly in the southwest. Municipal Officials Meeting Requests Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, will the Premier assure the House that along with contacting the councils and farmers in the southwest comer of the province, that councils in Gilbert Plains and Grandview will be contacted and notified of what this government is prepared to do to help these farmers who are facing a crunch this seeding time? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we are certainly open to discussions, consultations, with people involved. I am meeting with a number of rural municipal

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1935 officials from the southwest comer tomorrow who called in today and asked for a meeting. If he has any of his friends and colleagues from that area of Grandview and surrounding area that are looking for answers, then certainly I will make sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and his staff are able to respond to them and give them as much information as we have available to us on any and all of these potential programs or responses. Cervical Cancer Screening Program Status Report Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, neither past questions nor a private member's resolution have moved this Health minister nor any of his predecessors to open the much-awaited and much-announced central cervical cancer registry, despite the fact that each year 20 Manitoba women die from this highly treatable disease. I would like to ask the Minister of Health today, who well knows the unhappy statistics, when or if he intends to initiate this lifesaving program. Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Well, Madam Speaker, since the member last asked about this very important program, there have been ongoing discussions with the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation in terms of the implementation of the program. There have been some outstanding issues that still had to be addressed. I believe that all of the issues have now been addressed, and I would expect that we will be coming forward very, very shortly outlining this very important cervical cancer screening program for the province of Manitoba. Ms.

McGifford: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then if he could give us dates and places and if he could assure us that when the registry is indeed in place, if women from rural and northern Manitoba will have the opportunity to participate. Mr. Stefanson: Well, again, I think the member should wait for all of the details which will be outlined as soon as the program is announced. Madam Speaker, I do want to indicate that we are very close to being able to come forward with all of the details of the program, I would hope as early as this week if everything can be put together for that.

As I have indicated, there have been some outstanding issues that had to be addressed. Certainly one very important issue is the whole issue of personal privacy which I think we can all respect in this House. I believe the issues have now all been addressed and will be coming forward very shortly. *

(1410) Swan River Hospital Capital Project-Commu nity Contribution Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, people in the Swan River area are very concerned with some of the plans of this government for the Swan River hospital facility.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health: why does this government continue to insist that the community must pay 20 percent of the financing for the project when it is known that the problem is caused, in part, by the fact that this govern ment cancelled renovation projects to the Swan River facility which could have helped to prevent the mould buildup problem that we have in the facility? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Well, to the best of my knowledge the member is wrong.

In terms of reviewing department background, I cannot find any evidence of cancellation of programs for the Swan River hospital, in fact, quite the opposite. Over the last several years there have been hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on maintenance, on renovations for that facility, and again, as the member knows, the community contribution policy, of which there has been a policy in place of one type or another for many decades in Manitoba, does allow for the opportunity of a 10 percent contribution up front.

As the member knows, she was at a meeting that I was at a week ago Friday where we met with the hospital board, we met with the regional health authority, we met with many of the municipal leaders, we talked about the significant investment that the taxpayers of Manitoba are going to make in a temporary

1936 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 facility which will be covered I 00 percent by the provincial government in Swan River. We talked about the state-of-the-art facility that is going to be built in Swan River, maintaining all of the existing health care services and probably expanding on some services like ambulatory care and so on, and we talked about the whole issue of the community contribution not in any way being an impediment, because there is a unique situation here. We are prepared to start the project immediately, and we will continue to work with the communities on that issue as well.

So, in terms of the meetings I had with municipal leaders, people on the health boards, the staff, the doctors, the nurses, and other staff, it was very well received by all of the people we came in contact with that day in Swan River. Ms. Wowchuk: How can the minister say there was no cancellation of a project when there was an announcement where the previous, previous Minister of Health was in Swan River, unveiling a picture of all the renovations that were going to take place to the Swan River facility that were cancelled after the last election? How can you say there was no promise for renovations? Mr.

Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I will gladly send the member a

summary of the many renovations that were done to the facility. Just to give her an example of a couple, there were major roof repairs, $184,000 just in April of 1997, a number of other initiatives with money being spent back in 1996, renovation and upgrades of $485,000. I have had the department go back in the records, and they have not come forward with any evidence of that. In speaking to members of the board, they did not point to anything either. As well, the board itself had a surplus position.

They had trust funds set aside, and if they felt there was an important issue that needed to be addressed in terms of the well being of that facility, they also had the opportunity, so again there was nothing to point to that shows there was any neglect on anybody's part.

Unfortunately, mould can happen in our province and it did happen in this facility, but the important thing is we are taking immediate steps to put in place a $2-million to $2.5-million temporary facility, paid for by the government of Manitoba to commit to a state-of-the-art hospital facility that will serve Swan River and the entire region at a capital cost probably of $20 million, and we are taking the necessary steps to move forward in that community. Swan River Hospital Temporary Facility Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Speaking of a temporary facility, Madam Speaker, can the minister tell this House why he has approved funding for only a 20-bed temporary facility that will serve the region for up to three years when he has been told by staff, by the doctors and other people on the board that they would require a 40-bed temporary facility to provide the services? Why are you cutting half the beds? Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Well, Madam Speaker, I think what the member fails to either acknowledge or recognize, I hope it is just to acknowledge, I hope she recognizes that there have been extensive discussions with the hospital board, with the management of the hospital, with the board itself, with the regional health authority in terms of the kind of temporary facility that should be in place. It is not being done in isolation by the government of Manitoba. It is being done in co-operation with the community, with the people that are delivering the health care services in that community.

I did indicate that we would take one more look at that whole issue in terms of being sure that the temporary facility is of the right size, but I want to remind her that it is being done after extensive involvement from the people in the hospital, from the hospital board, from the regional health board and so on, who are having input into this important facility.

The good news for the community is that we are moving forward immediately with that temporary facility, expected to be opened by the end of September of this year, and we are moving forward immediately, moving into design for a state-of-the-art new hospital to meet the needs not only of Swan River but the entire region.

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1937 Troy Baird Bail Bearing- Transcript Review Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, last month I asked the Justice minister to review the transcript of the decision of Judge Newcombe where he released Troy Baird on bail while facing charges of attempted murder, forcible confinement, uttering threats and suicide aiding. Mr. Baird was then charged within a few days of his release of sexually assaulting his wife causing bodily harm.

I asked the minister to get back to me and get back to the House with his position because of the very disturbing views, in my opinion, that are found in that transcript. The minister has had several weeks, and I wonder-I have not heard back-has the minister now reviewed the transcript. Bon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, the matter of reviewing that particular transcript is a matter which my department is responsible for, and if there is any specific issue that the member would specifically want them to consider and then to advise me, I would certainly be prepared to do that. Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, he could have just said no. I asked the minister a very, very serious question a number of weeks ago, one of the most serious issues I have come across in my experience here in this Legislature.

I asked the minister to come back to either myself or to the House or both with his views of the judge's comments on that transcript, which in my view essentially was a blame-the-victim attitude. I ask the minister: would he please, iivW, finally, after all these weeks, look at the transcript, and I refer him particularly to page 47, and get back to me and this House and tell us what he is going to do and if he has concerns at all? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I know the member knows that I have concerns about that particular case. It is not quite as simple as the matter is put by the member.

I certainly believe that this government has taken every appropriate step to ensure that victims are represented in the justice system, to ensure that their voices are heard in the justice system. I know that the member sometimes wants to have answers to questions before those answers can be properly given, but we will ensure that the matter is considered. If there is any additional information I can bring back to the House, I will. Cross Lake, Manitoba Bridge Construction Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): The events this past weekend with the forest fire in Cross Lake brought attention once again to the fact that there are many communities in northern Manitoba that still do not have all-weather road access or, in the case of Cross Lake, a bridge. In fact, the bridge has been subject to numerous arbitrations under the Northern Flood Agree ment.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Energy and Mines whether, given the obvious events of the past weekend, he will be now prepared to reconsider the long-standing efforts of the people of Cross Lake First Nation to have a bridge constructed into their community, a bridge that is absolutely vital when you are dealing with lifesaving situations such as forest fires. Bon.

David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, pursuant to the already accomplished task of having 80 percent of the Northern Flood Agreement bands having settled, with respect to Cross Lake, there is a process underway at a working group level, and one of the items that is part of that process will be the all-season road, and in particular the Pipestone bridge. *

(1420) Highway Constru ction Projects All-Weather Roads Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I am wondering, in a further question to the Minister of Highways and Transportation, whether the minister will consider his position as minister and refusing to consider the efforts of other communities such as Thicket Portage for all weather-road access, refusing to even consider it under the capital budget, whether indeed the Minister of Highways will now undertake a study of all the communities that do not have

1938 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 roads in northern Manitoba and make that a priority of the capital construction budget, giving road access to northern communities? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): The member for Thomp son puts his question in a manner that leaves the impression that these are not issues that are under consideration by this administration. They are, and the difficulty, of course, is we have some $1.4 billion in possible road projects and requests for road projects, and we fund about $110 million a year annually in our capital budget.

At the same time, the national govern ment is levying some $147-million worth of gas taxes in this province and not putting one penny back into roads. So those projects are important. There are many projects that are important. Canadians, I believe it is time to engage in that debate over the role of the national government who collects gas taxes into funding capital projects for roads to provide access ways that the member has referenced. Mr. Ashton: A supplementary.

Will the minister drop his position and state it in writing to residents of Thicket Portage, and once again look at the fact that people in communities such as Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei, IIford, York Landing, many other communities throughout northern Manitoba, have no road access, and they should be included as part of the capital they are equivalent to many of the areas of southern Manitoba where the minister's department has been repaving shoulders that are already paved. When are you going to get fairness for northerners on highways? Mr.

Praznik: One of the projects now that this department is working on is to provide all weather-road access to communities on the eastern side of Lake Winnipeg to extend that road. That is a major project that would bring road access over a period of years to some 16,000 residents who today do not have that road access.

So, yes, this ministry is engaged in those projects, but one has to appreciate again, as long as some $147 million a year is collected by the national government in gasoline taxes in this province, with zero dollars coming back, it will be very difficult to be able to take on all of those projects in the immediate future. They are projects I would like to see this province be able to engage in. Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Track and Field Championship Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): This past weekend I had the pleasure of attending and participating in the senior high school and junior Manitoba rural provincial track and field championships. The championship was hosted by the Garden Valley Collegiate in Winkler. I must say that the competition was fierce, and the sense of sportsmanship was admirable. After two days of events, all participants came out winners. Hosting the event did not stop students at Garden Valley Collegiate from giving their all and coming out on top. GVC finished first in the two-day championship, followed by Treherne and Warren.

I congratulate all the schools who participated in the championship. I would also like to acknowledge a few students for their individual success on the weekend: Lenore Friesen, junior girls individual title for most points; Jennifer Towes, senior girls individual title for most points; Blane Pohl, junior boys individual title for most points; and Ryan Billington, senior boys individual title for most points. This weekend competition- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask those members carrying on private meetings if they would do quietly in the loge or outside the Chamber.

I am experiencing difficulty hearing the honourable member for Pembina. Mr. Dyck: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The weekend competition was a combination of hard work and commitment by students, staff and parents. Each and every one of you deserves a gold medal for your efforts in making this day memorable and fun for all. The students, staff and numerous volunteers at GVC were gracious hosts of the track and field championship. Your facility with a new $250,000 track was a worthy venue to host the event. I thank you and commend you for your efforts.

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1939 I ask all honourable members to join me in congratulating all of the participants of the Rural Manitoba Track and Field Championships and in thanking GVC for hosting it. Thank you. City Centre Commu nity Volunteerism Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, earlier this spring, along with about 150 people, including Mayor Murray and City Councillors Jenny Gerbasi and Harvey Smith, I attended the City Centre Community Board's annual volunteer recognition awards evening.

This is an evening designed to honour individuals from our city centre communities who have made important contributions to their community centres. Several industrious, creative, committed volunteers were acknowledged. This year's Volunteer of the Year Award was presented to Larry Schenkeweld, first vice president of Lord Roberts Community Centre and chair of the City Centre Community Board. Larry received the award because of his long involvement with Lord Roberts at many levels and because of his instrumental role in founding the Lord Roberts Youth Drop-in Centre, one of the most successful in the city.

He spent countless hours in creating the drop-in centre and continues to spend countless hours to ensure its sustainability. In fact, his wife assures me, if she cannot find him, she simply phones Lord Roberts. Larry Schenkeweld is the kind of person who spots a problem and takes action to solve it. He felt that youth in Lord Roberts needed help in focusing their lives and needed direction and an opportunity to test themselves in a safe environment. He set to work and established the drop-in centre. Lord Roberts' people describe Larry as a wonderful, wonderful person.

They say kids love him because, though he may take a hard line here and there, he is always fair. Personally, I want to say that Larry has made a big difference in the lives of many kids and young people. For this reason, I ask members of the House to join me in congratulating Larry Schenkeweld for a job well done. Campus Manitoba Mr.

David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Madam Speaker, this morning I had the privilege of representing the Province of Manitoba and the respective ministers, past and present, of the Education and Training ministry of this province at a launch of Campus Manitoba programming at Southport Aerospace facilities south of Portage la Prairie.

The Campus Manitoba programming is a collaborative effort by all three Manitoba universities, the University of Manitoba, the University of Winnipeg and the university of Brandon in course offerings by interactive telecommunications that offer first-, second-and third-year programming to students outside of the cities of Brandon and Winnipeg. I would like to congratulate all those persons involved in making this announcement possible; certainly, the involvement of Mr.

Dick Dawson, chair of the Council on Post-Secondary Education through his executive director, Leo LeTourneau, as well as Kathleen Mathias [phonetic] from Campus Manitoba under the direction of Dr. T. Patrick Carrabre, senior university officer of Campus Manitoba programming. Madam Speaker, Campus Manitoba will be operating out of the Southport Aerospace facilities this September, offering young people of central Manitoba the opportunity to pursue their post-secondary education. This will not be limited to those persons just graduating this year.

However, I encourage all those who are wanting to pursue their post-secondary education to consider this offering of the course material in Portage la Prairie. I am immensely proud of the co-operation that I have received from the Southport Aerospace facilities as well as the school division located in Portage la Prairie. The Portage la Prairie School Division in co operation with Campus Manitoba will provide- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honour able member's time has expired.

1940 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 Philippine Heritage Week Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, the Philippine Heritage Week is a

schedule of events starting with the traditional flag-raising ceremony on June 6, 1999, at the Winnipeg City Hall quadrangle, 51 0 Main Street, with many organizations and groups displaying their banners and later participating in cultural activities. The 1999 Heritage Week is being co-ordinated by a Philippine Heritage Week co-ordinating committee presided over by our honorary Consul-General Dr. Rolando Guzman.

Among the participating organizations are the Knights and Ladies of Rizal, the United Filipino Canadian Seniors, the Original Filipino Seniors of Manitoba, Timpuyog Ti Ilocano Ditoy Manitoba, Filipino Seniors Groups of Euclid Street, Filipino Veterans Association and many other groups and associations. On Thursday, June 10, about 6 p.m., the Association of Filipino Teachers Incorporated will be hosting a cultural presentation about the Philippines, its country and its people at Wellington School, 690 Beverley Street, corner of Wellington Avenue.

On Friday, June 11, starting at 6 p.m., the Bulacan Association of Winnipeg will be celebrating their third founding anniversary at the International Inn. On Saturday, June 12, at the Convention Centre, the Philippine community will be hosting the Philippine Independence Com memoration Ball at 375 York Avenue, Winnipeg Convention Centre, to start about 6 p.m. On Sunday, June 13, there will be a Filipino picnic at the Assiniboine Park, 2255 Corydon A venue, in the Tuxedo area.

The Filipino-Canadians will be joined by many other Canadians represented by all political parties and groups, for this cultural group is truly becoming an integral part of our multicultural province. Prairie Production Centre Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Cbarleswood): I am very pleased that construction of Manitoba's first all-season film studio, the Prairie Production Centre, has begun. The Prairie Production Centre, a $7.7-million facility, will bring together all aspects of production under one roof and be accessible year round to local, Canadian, and foreign production companies.

The studio will be adaptable to accommodate three separate productions simultaneously or one large production. The second and third floors will house permanent tenants including production companies, post production firms or other groups. The new studio will also attract a wide variety of television series, documentaries, TV dramas and movies of the week to the province and will help build a larger local production crew base. Phase one involves the construction of a 15,000 square foot sound stage with 3,500 square feet of production office space to be opened this September.

Phase two will be complete in September 2000. Construction is being assisted with $1.5 million from the provincial government. This initiative is one of a series of steps, including Manitoba's 35 percent Film and Video Production Tax Credit, to build film making into a $1 00-million industry in the province by the end of the year 2000. Our government is pleased to take

part in this initiative which will help make Manitoba the Hollywood of the Prairies and ensure our film industry grows and prospers. This new studio will not only benefit the film industry but other related industries as well. It is an investment in the future of the Canadian film industry and Manitoba's economy. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the continued growth of the province's film industry, an industry that will not only tap into the great creative potential of Manitobans but also contribute to the overall health and diver sification of our economy. Thank you. *

(1430) ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of things.

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1941 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 Honour able 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. THIRD READINGS Bill 27- The Essential Services Amendment Act 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 Ia

Loi sur les services essentiels ), be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. 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

1942 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 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

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1943 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 under standing 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 govern ment'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.

1944 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 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 under taken 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

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1945 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

1946 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 1999 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. * (1 500) 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

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1947 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 account ability 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 )

1948 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3I, I999 An Honourable Member: No. You are lucky that we are going to give you IS 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 achieve ments, 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 actual ly 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 legis lation 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 clos ure 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 I 00 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 coll eagues on the fire side are hav ing their contracts negotiated and, ultimately, if need be, going through binding arbitration,

whereas you have essential services legis lation 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 I 00 percent factual, quite possibly; yesterday the government did bring in an amendment.

They did bring in an amendment, but let us- An Honour able Member: That is because we listened. Mr. Lamoureux: Because you listened in part, not because you listened in its entirety.

May 31, 1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1949 The amendment, think about the amend ment. The government says, look, we will pass the legis lation 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 Honourabl e 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-bef ore others had gotten me a little bit off track-that paramedic who wakes up in the morning, who goes into that fire-hall 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 ju st 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 coll eagues or vice versa on different issues? * (1 520) 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 carne 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

19 50 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3I, I9 99 not know about it until then. Well, you know, it was May II 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 media tor that has been appointed, well, I would argue and articulate that there is no urgency, that there is no need for the Minis ter 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 commit tee stage or through the amendment, there were questions or concerns expressed to the Min ister of Health. We have not seen those issues addressed. I would like to hear from the Minister of Health (Mr.

Stefanson) or the Minis ter 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 Minis ter 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 media tion?

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 limit ed 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 Min ister of Justice (Mr. Toews) indi cates 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,

May 31, 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 51 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. * (1 530) 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 indica te 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 pict ure when in commit tee 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 legis lation. 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 Fi lmon Frida ys, 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 Lib eral 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 antila bour legis lation, 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 di fficulty the Libe ral 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 bi ll.

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 Li beral 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 minis ter 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 legis lation, 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 arbitrati on, 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 Lib eral Party in this

19 52 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31 , 19 99 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 Liber al 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 Lib eral 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 Liber al 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 Lib erals react in terms of that.

We are not sure where they are at. Once again, I say to the Lib erals, they have dis covered 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 Legisla ture, 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 Lib eral 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 Lib eral Party and the New Democrats.

The people of Inkster will have a choice on issues such as this involving working people between the Libe rals 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 will ing 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 Lib eral 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 min utes 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 con stituencies throughout the province, including Inkster, is a choice. In this particular case, he may be saying that the Lib erals will-I do not know if we should get into plural but certainly the Lib eral, 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 Legis lature. 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,

May 31, 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 53 what we indi cated, we were prepared to debate this. Unlike the Li berals, we did recognize the urgency of the situation, and I say to the Lib eral 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 arbitrati on, but he should not now get up on the record and suggest that somehow the Lib eral 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 indica tive 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 parti cular 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. * (1 540) We would have not got to that point if we had followed what the Li berals 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 ha ving to make a decision on where they stood on arbitration. I really belie ve 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 Lib erals you have got to watch for. Mr. Ashton : There is some reference, I think, to the south-end Lib erals. 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 amend ments 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 Li beral 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 minu tes 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 disi ngenuous.

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

1954 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 19 99 Lib erals 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 Libe rals 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 Honour able Members: No. Voice Vote Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honour able 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 Minis ter of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a commit tee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consid eration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Trai ning. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 16 .2. School Programs (

d) Program Development

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 48 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, at the end of last time, the minis ter was going to bring some information on inf ormation technology and, I believe, a number of other pieces of information about the Assiniboine Communi ty College platform and the arrangements with school divisions that are proposed and may have been made within the southwest, and a few other things. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, further to our discussions related to the hosting of the

May 31, 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1955 southwest consortium Web-based course on World Issues 40S, Assi niboine Community Colleges and the southwest consortium are working in partnership to pilot the deliv ery of the World Issues 40S course during the 19 99- 2000 school year. As its contribution to the partnership, Assiniboine Community College has agreed to host the Web-based course on their server at no cost to the southwest consortium. The southwest consortium has agreed to pay Assiniboine Community College, based on an hourly rate, for any technical support that is required.

With respect to the technical support, this is a matter that the department is still reviewing. The honourable member asked about keyboarding and the impl ications for early, middle and senior years. I am advised by the Program Development Branch of the School Programs Division as follows: the government of Manitoba has initiated a process of educational renewal referenced in Renewing Education: New Directions, which identifies technology as one of the four foundation skill areas required for kindergarten to Senior 4.

In August 19 98, the department released the document technology as a foundation skill A Journey Toward Information Technology Literacy to support the integration of technology as a foundation skill into all curri cula. With the increased emphasis on information technology in schools and specifically on the use of computers as tools to enhance student learning at all grades, competency in key boarding is essential.

The department acknow ledges the need to review the status of existing senior years keyboarding courses and to examine the options for ensuring that students develop keyboarding skills at an earlier age in their schooling. Existing keyboarding curri cula Senior I Introductory Keyboarding 19 93 and Senior 2 Advanced Keyboarding 19 93 are being implemented much less frequently in the senior years classes. Rather, schools increasingly are focusing on middle years as the time to introduce keyboarding.

This approach is consistent with the skills continuum in tech nology as a foundation skill, which identifies that introduction and mastery of keyboarding as an expectation for students in Grades 4 to 8. The department will undertake to develop a teacher support document related to keyboarding skills, as well as, identify commercially produced multimedia learning resources for key boarding as options to facil itate keyboarding instruction. Pertinent information will be com municated to schools in the near future. I am tabling also, fur

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-5-35
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 5th hansardpdf 35.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a893691ccb228671f0fb3243216f236783e3fc8a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).