Manitoba Committee Hansard — Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 2 (36th Legislature, 5th Session)

36-5-la2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session - Thirty -Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Law Amendments Chairperson Mr. Jack Penner Constituency of Emerson Vol. XLIX No. 2 - 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 19, 1999 ISSN 0713-95R6

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, 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 LATHLIN, 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.

27 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Wednesday, May 19, 1999 TIME - 2:30 p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson) VICE-CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina) ATTENDANCE - 11- QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Stefanson Mr. Ashton, Ms. Barrett, Mr. Doer, Mrs. Driedger, Messrs. Dyck, Faurschou, Helwer, Laurendeau, Penner, Reid APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster Mr. Gary Kowalski, MLA for The Maples WITNESSES: Mr. Ian Macintyre, Manitoba Teachers' Society Mr. Ray Orr, Private Citizen Mr.

Alex Forrest, United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg Mr. Jon Gerrard, Leader, Liberal Party of Manitoba MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 27- The Essential Services Amend ment Act * * * Mr. Chai rperson (Jack Penner): Would the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. This afternoon, the committee will be resuming consideration of Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment Act. This morning, the committee had heard three presentations on the bill, and there are still several others who have registered to speak on the bill.

I will now read the names of the persons who are still on the list who have registered up till now. They are Ian Macintyre, Manitoba Teachers' Society; Ray Orr, private citizen; Alex Forrest, the United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg. If there are any others who feel that they would like to make a presentation, they can register at the back of the room with the Clerk's staff. Those of you who are making presentations, if you have written presentations, we need IS copies of the presentation for distribution. If you have not, you can make oral presentations. It is up to you.

If you need copies made, you can indicate to the Clerk's office in the back of the room that you need copies made, and they will assist you with that. If there are any others in the room who have not yet identified themselves as wanting to make a presentation, please do so now. We will now continue with the presentations, and I will call on Ian Macintyre, Manitoba Teachers' Society to make his presentation. Do you have a written presentation for distribution? Mr. Ian Macintyre (Manitoba Teachers' Society): It is written, but it is going to be oral. Mr. Cha irperson: Please proceed. Mr.

Macintyre: Thank you, Chair. I welcome the opportunity to stand before you this afternoon and appear in speaking to this piece of legislation. I would like to start with a quote if I could: In the years since the strike the Province of Manitoba has enacted legislation which

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 28 recognizes workers' rights to participate in free collective bargaining, to organize, and to healthy and safe workplaces. This is taken from the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike commemorative plaque placed in the hallway of the Legislature in June 19 94, and it was put there by the Honourable Gary Filmon and the Honourable Darren Praznik, Minister of Labour at that time. Today I stand before you on a very sad occasion. Another piece of spontaneous legislation has suddenly been introduced to the Manitoba Legislature.

Again, this government has introduced legislation that will curtail and effectively eliminate the rights of working Manitobans without consultation. I wanted to quote someone else: "The fact of the matter is there is no threat, there is no club and there never will be from this Government. We will act in good faith at all times in the open free collective bargaining process with all of the employees with whom we have to negotiate." Gary Filmon, Hansard, November 6, 19 90. The public school teachers of Manitoba have also experienced unilateral and arbitrary actions by this government.

The public school teachers of Manitoba know what the loss of bargaining and the dispute resolution rights mean. We live it daily and, therefore, I felt moved to appear here today before this committee to oppose Bill 27. Let me give you some history. In 19 55, teachers, school trustees and government sat down; they sat together, they negotiated, and they agreed to a process to bargain teachers' working conditions and compensation. This resulted in more than 40 years of labour peace and collective agreements that were mutually beneficial to employees, employers and the citizens of Manitoba.

That is the way things used to work in Manitoba. Forty years later, and without consultation, Bill 72 imposed by this government changed public schooling, and here we go again, Bill 27, 19 99, amendments to The Essential Services Act following upon Bill 26, 19 96, amendments to The Labour Relations Act, and Bill 72, 19 96, amendments to The Public Schools Act. With this bill before the Legislature, the right to strike is taken away, and no meaningful and workable process is put in place to allow Manitobans to solve problems.

A balanced dispute resolution mechanism is essential for fair and open bargaining, and that mechanism is binding arbitration. Services to citizens is an issue for another venue, the bargaining table. Let the City of Winnipeg support binding arbitration for all its workers whom I and 7,000 other public school teachers as taxpayers in this city pay for. I would agree that ambulance attendants consider themselves essential, and we heard that this morning.

In fact, one of my neighbours considered them essential on Sunday night, 12 :30 in the morning, but this legislation goes far beyond consideration of ambulance attendants as being essential. In fact, Chair, negotiations is a balance, a balance of rights, those of the employers, yes, but those of working Manitobans, as well, and that balance includes a dispute resolution mechanism. Firefighters have binding arbitration. Police officers have binding arbitration and such as it is, teachers have an arbitration option. Why then should ambulance attendants not have the right to binding arbitration?

This government is renowned for its simplistic answers to complex issues. This over reactive legislation is typical of them. Just as an aside, this morning I asked the government House leader as to how much time was being allocated to individuals to make their presentation, and instead of getting a minute amount, I was told, if you are thinking about filibustering, we will cut you off, which speaks to the over-reaction and hypersensitivity of this government on many issues. The simplistic Bill 72 has not solved any of the original stated problems. In fact, it has complicated negotiations across the province.

Bill 72 will also present long-term con sequences. Teachers are not covered by The Labour Relations Act, and we have been

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 removed from the list of esse ntial services, but let me put you on notice that 98 percent of teachers at our 19 98 annual general meeting voted in favour of inclusion under The Labour Relations Act with access to binding arbitra tion, because we felt inclusion under The Labour Relations Act with access to binding arbitration provides the only meaningful and workab le process for resolving working issues of Manitoba public schools. Public school teachers of Manitoba support the ambulance attendants in their right to negotiate a contract.

The public school teachers of Manitoba support the right of ambulance attendants to solve their disputes with the tools allowed them by legislation. The MTS, Manitoba Teachers' Society, is strongly opposed to this simplistic and heavy-handed legislation that eliminates the rights of Manitobans. * (1 450) Again: "The fact of the matter is there is no threat, there is no club and there never will be from this Government. We will act in good faith at all times in the open free collective bargaining process with all of the employees with whom we have to negotiate." Gary Film on, Hansard, November 6, 19 90.

I ask the government to live up to Premier Gary Filmon's commitment. Withdraw this piece of legislation in favour of the City of Winnipeg and ambulance attendants negotiating their own settlement, and failing that, allow them to solve their dispute within the legal means allowed them under The Labour Relations Act. Thank you. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Macintyre, for your pres entation. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Macintyre, for your presentation.

The binding arbitration process, notwithstanding Bill 72 and the dispute on the changes that were made in that act a few years ago, as I understand it, provides binding arbitra tion for all teachers. In other words, it covers 100 percent of the services to kids through the process in place now, is that not correct? Mr. Macintyre: Yes. Mr. Doer: I am sure you have looked at The Essential Services Act, which is, in itself, a misnomer in my estimation, because it is part services and part not servi ces.

If The Essential Services Act would apply to teachers, would there be 1 00 percent of the teachers still providing services to kids as opposed to binding arbitration? Mr. Macintyre: I think in reading the act and understanding it, there would be a process available to us that not all teachers would have to be in the classroom. Mr. Doer: You mentioned you were listening this morning to the presentations made. It seems to us that it is only logical to have 100 percent of the ambulances available on the streets like there are in Brandon and Thompson with arbitra tion.

A process to have binding arbitra tion that has been agreed to and recommended by Mr. Fotti this morning would provide 10 ambulances on a Friday night under the binding arbitra tion process and something less than 10 under The Essential Services Act. With your expertise in collective bargaining, would that also be your assessment, and what do you think the public impact of that would be? Mr. Macintyre: Yes, that is my assessment of what previous speakers have said and what I understand from the act.

I certainly know that my neighbour to the left of me at home would also be in favour of having as many ambulances on the road as necessary considering the need for their need on Sunday evening. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Macintyre, for your presentation. I call next Mr. Ray Orr, priva te citizen. Have you a presentation for distribution? Mr. Ray Orr (Private Citizen): No, Sir. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you. You may proceed. Mr. Orr: Thank you, Sir. Just to introduce myself, I am a consultant who is working for the paramedics right now. I am assisting them with

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 30 negotiations with the city, just so you know who I am. I did work for the city for 30 years; I retired in 19 97. What I wanted to do basically was go through a little bit of history of arbitra tion with the city. I will be very careful, since there is nobody here from the city, that I do not get into anything that could be disputed; there will be strictly factual history. I would like to elaborate a little bit on the approach that has been taken to negotiations with respect to this question of arbitra tion, given the comments that were made by Mr.

Shepherdson and Mr. Shoemaker this morning. Also, I would like to bring you up to date of where we are at in terms of getting back to the bargaining table as we understand it. First of all, you should know there are three groups in the city that have access to arbitra tion to resolve their interest disputes. The firefighters who have the firefighters arbitra tion act which came in in the '70s, I believe.

In the middle '80s, the police had the right to strike, and I think given a contemplation of the possibi lity of a police strike, I believe the city sought in their interest to negotiate that away with the police association. They did that. Subsequently, the police have the right to binding arbitra tion, and that was put into The City of Winnipeg Act. There is a group of middle managers, I believe there are around 650-700, called the Winnipeg Assoc iation of Public Service Officers with whom the city entered into a voluntary agre ement to utilize arbitra tion as a dispute resolution proc ess.

What we have asked for at the bargaining table is to have access to the same type of process that W APSO has; that is the middle management group. We did not ask to be legis lated, we did not ask to go under the firefighters or in The City of Winnipeg Act, but we said look at us voluntarily. When Mr. Shepherdson and Mr. Shoemaker were here today they said, well, they kind of opened the door, I thought I heard, to say, well, maybe we could look at this in the future, maybe it is something that we could consider down the road.

I have to tell you very frankly that is not at all what we have heard at the barg aining table. At the bargaining table it has been simply a flat no, we will not discuss it, we do not have a mandate to discuss it, we will not do that. On that point, in terms of where we are at, I must say that your Conciliation Services have been very helpful. We are dealing with an officer from the Department of Labour. She is working very hard to bring the par ties together. She is going back and forth . I think she is kind of beating us both up. At least we hope she is beating up the other side as much as she is beating us up.

We are back to conciliation tomorrow morning at 9:30. It is our desire and our intent, as the paramedics, to negotiate a collective agreement. Part and par cel of that for us is to have some movement on our major issue. To this point we have not been able to reach that to a satisfactory degree, so we are hopeful to be able to resolve that. We have told the city that we have no intention of taking any job action as long as there are fruitful discussions going on the operative word being fruitful. That is all I have to say. Just wanted to let you know that. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you very much, Mr.

Orr, for your presentation. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Ray, it is good to see you again. It has been a while. How long have negotiations been basically suspended? When was the last time that you met? Mr. Orr: Pardon me, Sir? Mr. Stefanson: When was the last time you met? Mr. Orr: A week ago Friday. Mr. Stefanson: Okay. Mr. Chairman, with the conciliation officer now calling a meeting for tomorrow morning, was that part of the normal process? Mr.

Orr: What we indicated to the city when we broke off the negotiations was that it was our intent to go to the membership to present the membership with the city's last offer so that they could consider that by secret ballot, and to have

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 a strike vote by secret ballot, and that we would then want to come back and resume discussions. The city was of the view, for whatever reason, that if we took a strike vote we would not be successful in getting a strike mandate from the membership. That was proved to be not the case, as the strike mandate was 94 percent. We saw that as a strong indicator of the members' views, as a strong indicator of their solidarity, and we wanted to bring that back to the barg aining table and proceed to negotiate from there.

I came to see them yesterday, and that is when we found out for the first time about this process. Mr. Doer: This morning's presentation from Mr. Shepherdson and Mr. Shoemaker indicated: we want this act, Bill 27, passed and this could lead or would lead to arbitra tion. Have you read The Essential Services Act, and are there any sections in that act that provide for arbitra tion? Mr. Orr: Yes, Sir, I read it, and no, Sir, there are no sections in there that I see that provide for arbitra tion. Mr. Doer: Mr. Shepherdson and Mr.

Shoemaker also indicated that the number of ambulances required under this act, The Essential Services Act, would be something more than a fraction and something less than a hundred percent. As a citizen I want to know-I keep asking this very simple question-if there are 10 ambulances out there on a Friday night and if any one of my neighbours is hurt, how many ambulances are going to be there? I could not get an answer yet with the committee. I hear it has gone from a fraction to perhaps half, and I have even heard that is maybe even higher.

But have you been told how many of those 10 ambulances would be operating under this Essential Services Act? Mr. Orr: I have not heard officially. I have heard scuttlebutt that it would be pretty much all of them. Mr. Doer: So if it is half of them, we have a problem in terms of services to the public. If it is all of them, we have a problem because there is no way to resolve the dispute, because you have the right to strike with nobody being allowed to strike. Is that not correct? Mr. Orr: That is right. Mr. Doer: I am concerned about services.

So the bottom line is, under arbitra tion, a hundred percent of the services are provided, no guesswork on the one hand; on the other hand binding arbitra tion would provide to the public of Manitoba, to Winnipeg rather-we ll, the public of Manitoba in Brandon and Thompson have it; the people of Winnipeg are going to get something less than a hundred percent, maybe it is 99 percent, but it is still less than-binding arbitra tion would provide a hundred percent of the services to the people. Is that not correct? Mr. Orr: That is correct, Mr.

Doer, and I guess it should be pointed out here also that we are not just talking about paramedics here. We are also talking about the people who work in dispatch. People who work in dispatch are, again, the link in that very critical chain. As far as I know, most of the people working there have come from the ranks of the paramedics. It takes a great skill set to work there, and anybody who has ever phoned 91 1 I think would certainly realize that. So we are not just talking about paramedics, we are talking about our dispatchers as well.

I think from our perspective we have a hard time understanding why it is fair for these groups over here but not for this group here. There was a link made by Mr. Shepherdson to health care, because that is basically what is covered by the Essential Services agreement. We are not in health care; we are in the fire departm ent, the emergency services department. The ambulance department does not exist anymore. The fire department does not exist anymore. We are together. We ought to be treated the same. * (1 500) Mr.

Doer: There is a statement made that the City of Winnipeg essential services are covered by legislation to avoid service disruptions, including the fire department and Winnipeg Police Service. As I understand it, the fire

May 19, 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 32 department and the Winnipeg Police Service are not under The Essential Services Act, which is before the Legislature now, they are under different acts. Is that not correct? Mr. Orr: Yes, firefighters are under the firefighters arbitrat ion act. The Winnipeg Police Association is under The City of Winnipeg Act. Mr.

Doer: As I understand it, when the Schreyer government brought in The Labour Relations Act, the firefighters arbitra tion act was put in place as a balance between the public right to service and the ability to have a free collective barg aining process. Arbitration was the method chosen. You go back- Mr. Orr: I do not go back quite that far. Mr. Doer: Okay, you do not go back quite that far. Okay, well, I know you go back as far as the former deputy mayor, who may have, as I recall, been involved in the police officers arbitra tion, but I am not going to go back in history here. Mr. Orr: Mr.

Irving would probably go back that far. Mr. Doer: Oh, he does, he goes back longer than all of us, I know that. I am asking the question about, the firefighters are under a separate act that provides binding arbitra tion, which is considered to be the balance of collective bargaining rights and public good. Is that not correct? Mr. Orr: I would think so, Sir. Mr. Doer: The police service act, as I recall, I may recall correctly, it was in the mid-'80s, maybe '86, '87. I would like to ask when the date was.

I think we were in office still and the minister was then the deputy mayor, if I recall correctly, and it was perceived to be in the public interest to have our government, I believe, and I am going by memory, bring in arbitra tion, binding arbitra tion for the police. Is that not correct? Mr. Orr: I believe that was the case. Mr.

Doer: As a citizen of Winnipeg, can anybody explain to me why middle-management people have binding arbitra tion and why it is proposed that you have recommended binding arbitration and the people, the ambulance providers and the dispatchers, are not given that as a way of resolving a dispute? It seems to me that I would like an ambulance at my door, nothing against the senior managers, but is there any explanation given to you why the public good is better served with arbitra tion for middle managers and not better served for ambulance services in the city of Winnipeg? Mr. Orr: We have had no explanation.

I will not speak for the city, Mr. Doer. Mr. Doer: Well, perhaps Mr. Laurendeau gave that away when he was on council to the senior managers. The other issue then is it makes sense for the workers providing the service; it makes sense for the public. It will provide a level of service that is obviously acceptable to the public in the sense that it is already a stretched service because of the hallway situation, ambulances going from hospital to hospital. Did the government consult with you or with the employees before they brought this legislation in yesterday? I know they consulted with City Hall.

It usually is our belief that both parti es, if they are going to be affected by legislation, should be consulted. We phoned both parties yesterday as fast as-we only had about an hour. Were the people consulted that were directly affected by this legislation beforehand to explore the option of binding arbitration before this act was put in the Legislature? Mr. Orr: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Doer. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Orr, you seem to have a very good grip on this stuff. I am interested in finding something out. When we talk about conciliators, are those appointed?

Do they need permission from both sides to have a conciliator? Mr. Orr: My understanding of the process, Mr. Laurendeau, is that if one party believes that bargaining would be assisted by the services of a conciliator, one party can request that. Mr. Laurendeau: A mediator?

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 Mr. Orr: No, in this case, a conciliator. Mr. Laurendeau: How about a mediator? Mr. Cha irperson: Mr. Laurendeau, could we please let Mr. Orr respond and then we will ask the next question? Could you please pull your mike up a bit closer? Mr. Orr: So in this case the union applied for conciliation. We applied to the Minister of Labour. Then Mr. Fleury from Conciliation Services assigned a conciliator to work with us, and subsequent to that the conciliator has called us together.

She is quite aware of where we are at in this process and has called us back to meet tomorrow . Mr. Laurendeau: Would another step after that, if we did not seem to be coming to resolution, would that not be a mediator, and is that under the same process? Mr. Orr: As I understand it, the minister could appoint a mediator. I am not right up to speed on that legislation. I do not know if the parti es could request it or not, but as I understand it, a mediator could be appointed, and that is another step in the process that could be gone through. In fact, I think Mr.

Fox-Decent was appointed to deal with the nurses' situation. It would be similar to that. Mr. Laurendeau: I keep hearing about con sultation from members on the other side. When we talked about some of this, the firefighters, the police, the police agreement in the '80s, was that not agreed to by both parties prior to being brought to the Legis lature for the City of Winnipeg amendments? Mr. Orr: Yes, I believe it was, Sir. Mr. Laurendeau: You said you were not aware about the 19 70s, but I do not believe that was that was done arbitra rily by government I believe to be correct.

Both parties were affected by it but neither party wanted it in the '70s, but are you aware of that? Mr. Orr: No, Sir, I am not. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, you make reference in terms of the binding arbitra tion, that there was very little discussion that had taken place, that in fact it was brought up at the table but very quickly turned down. Can you speculate as to what you feel? Is that the general feeling of City Council as a whole? Was there any canvassing ever done of city councillors? Is that a major ity opinion, that binding arbitrati on should just be a no go, right off the word go?

Mr. Orr: We deal with the barg aining team that comes to the table to represent the city, and we can only assume that they are representing the views of City Council at the end of the day, perhaps through the Executive Policy Com mittee, so basically that is where we are at. Mr. Chairperson: I do this job only because I am asked to, and the only reason I spell out your names is because your mike is going to be switched on and your comments are going to be recorded. If I do not mention your name, the mike does not get switched on. Mr.

Lamoureux: Has there been any discussion, maybe between union membership and some of the councillors? Are there any councillors that are on the record in regard to it in any way outside of the management committee? Mr. Orr: No, I am not aware. Mr.

Lamoureux: One needs to take a look in terms of-because you have it with the police service and the fire department, and I did not know that the middle management had it until this afternoon, but particularly with those two essential services and now with paramedics being deemed as an essential service, at least in the eyes of the ones that are bringing forward this bill, in the eyes of most it has always being perceived as an essential service. What sort of a feeling or arguments-! do not know if I can even ask that question.

What sort of arguments would have been put forward or response would have been given if you say that, look, you have fire and you have police receiving it, why not us? Was there ever any arguments as to why binding arbitra tion is just not feasible for para medics? Mr. Orr: At this round of bargaining there has been no discussion about it whatsoever. The

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 34 discussion has been no, it is not our mandate to discuss this, we are not going to talk about it. I understand that in past rounds of barg aining what has happened is that the paramedics have been told well, you are not an essential service, you are a utility. Therefore you do not get binding arbitra tion. * (15 10) Mr. Lamoureux: Would that have been the same people or different people making up the negotiating committees at that time, like were they totally different sets of individuals? Mr.

Orr: There is a different group of people involved this time around that is pretty much top to bottom it is relatively new. Mr. Lamoureux: In terms of its impor tance you had mentioned that you felt it was necessary to get a strike mandate, and an overw helming strike mandate. I think you said 94 percent which is very impressive in terms of percentage for a strike mandate. This came out of the blue and surprised you, as it did members of the opposition. Can you indicate in terms of what your strategy was, like was there a strike date that was already set?

Maybe I have not followed the news as closely as I could have, or should have, but was there a strike date set? What seems to be the real sense of urgency in dealing with this legislation? Mr. Orr: One of the reasons that we thought we had to go and get a strike mandate was because it seemed to us that our main issue, which was this disparity between the firefighters and the paramedics, was simply not being addr essed. We had talked about it, talked about it, we had been talking inform ally about it since last summer. The new group was formed this fall.

We formally exchanged proposals in December, but discussio ns have been ongoing around this issue. To say that we were stone walled is probably an accurate descriptio n of how things went. In the last package that the city brought to the bar gaining table, they did at least put something in writing to us. I think it was described earlier as having a number of caveats attached to it, such that if the paramedics agre ed to that as a process, it was very possible that nothing would ever happen, and that the issue would simply go away.

By agreeing to that process, the paramedics are basically precluded from discussing the issue in the future, because you have bound yourself to that process. The city, it seemed to us, was not paying attention to us. We felt that we had to bring the matter to their attention. We felt we had to get it to the political level so what we did was we broke off the bargaining. We told the city that we were going to be taking the step that we took. We wrote a letter to the mayor and to all the councillors.

Subseq uent to that, for the very first time, to writing that letter, I actually got a call from a couple of city administrators saying to us, well, we would maybe like to know a little bit more about your proposal on how you are going to deal with this disp arity. Up until that point in time it had been stric tly no. The other side of that was, basically, we do not think you guys are going to get a strike vote, so we are not really going to deal with this issue until we see where you are at with your strike vote.

We got our strike vote, we came down, we said let us get back to the barg aining table, folks, and we heard about this. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): This round of negotiations has been going on for how long now? Mr. Orr: Officially, since December. Unofficially, we have been talking to the city since last summer. Mr. Kowalski: Some people are accused of campaigning from t he left and governing from the right. Glen Murray, when he ran for mayor, one of the things he often said was how the previous mayor did not have good relationships with the unions.

I b elieve Glen Murray received a lot of support from organized labour and unions and that. Are you surprised that someone who received so much support in the last civic election has requested this draconian legislation? Mr. Orr: Yes, Sir. We were surpri sed. We had been told by the city on, I think it was, the day that we were taking our strike vote. I was told by Mr. Shepherdso n that if we got this str ike vote, the city was going to apply to have us

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 included ac; an essential service. Silly me, I thought we would be getting back to the bargaining table first, so we were somewhat surpri sed to find out yesterday when we went down to City Hall to talk to them that this was going to happen. Mr. Kowalski: You are not the only one surpri sed. As has been mentioned numerous times here is that the opposition parties were not given notice that this was coming forward .

Only Mayor Glen Murra y's letter to the government, there was no consultation with any other people in the Legis lature about this, and the mayor nor any of his representa tives have chosen to come before the committee and represent their views and explain anything, so you are not the only one surpri sed. They have put this Legislature in a difficult position and have failed to come here and present their viewpoint. I am very disappointed that they have done that.

They have asked us to bail them out and then have failed to come here other than to send the representative of the administration who could not comment on policy issues. To me, I am very disappointed in Mayor Glen Murray and his Executive Policy Committee that they have not come here and represented their viewpoint Now I am trying to understand the logic here. The police are deemed a service that we cannot do without, so they have been given binding arbitra tion. So in other words, if some one calls that someone is going to shoot someone, we want to have all the police officers present.

Now, if someone is shot, well, we will have essential services agreements, so we will have some of the ambulance attendants able to respond. Does that make sense to you? Mr. Orr: I think the paramedics can probably talk to that a lot better than I can, Sir. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions, comments? Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Just briefly again, because I want to put in context the situation we are dealing with. Mr. Chairperson: Could you pull your mike up just a wee bit closer. Mr.

Ashton: I mentioned this this morning because as House leader, from our side in terms of the NDP, we did not know about this until yesterday . It was presented to us, by the way, not by the city. We talked to the city and to repres entatives of the union since, but the presentation to us by government was that this was urgent. They asked for leave to get this into the House, and while we do not agree with what is being proposed, we were told it was urgent. I can only assume by that that the government was assuming that there was an imminent strike situation.

Now I am just wondering, is that the case because what my understanding is conciliation is ongoing? The fact there has been a strike vote does not indicate there is an imminent strike situation. I am trying to get some idea of this because we were told yesterday basically this was urgent, that we had to deal with this immediately, and we are try ing to get some sense-I know in our caucus, we have proposed an alternative-but what is the situation in terms of a potential strike? Mr.

Orr: Prior to the mayor leaving, last week we gave information to the city that it was our intent to not engage in any disruptive action until after he retu rned providing we were making progress in our discussions. If the city was going to simply sit there and say: no, no, no, no, no, then in fairness to them, all bets are off. But our intention was-and I work for the paramedics, and I have told the paramedics that I see my job here is to go back and get a collective agreement.

We have a barg aining committee, we have a public relations group, we have a strike committee, as I guess would happen in most of these circumstances. The main priority is to get a collective agreement. The reason that we went and got the strike vote was because it seemed to us that we did not have the attention of the city in terms of dealing with our main issue that we wanted to deal with. We think we have the attention. We are not sure that we really thought it was going to show itself this way.

We are more than happy to go back to the barg aining table to sit down to talk with the city, and we are quite hopeful that we can work something out. If we cannot, then I guess we will have to see what parti cular deck of cards we

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 36 are dealt with from this process, and then go from there. Mr. Ashton: I want to confirm again that the government did not bother to contact the paramedics on this because you know we are dealing here not just with a request by the city. I mentioned this earlier, I mean the city requests all sorts of things the government says no to. In this parti cular case, the government rushed this in yesterday. I had about four different urgent phone calls before I finally got this notice. I would have assumed that the Minister of Health (Mr.

Stefanson), who, I understand, did meet this morning with representatives of the paramedics, might have actually met with them before this happened because we were basically under the impression-you know, as House leader, I was told this was urgent, there was an imminent strike. I mean, all this thing a bit built up, but I just want to clarify that the Minister of Health and the government did not contact you or anybody else prior to bringing in this bill to find out what the real situation was? *( 15 20) Mr. Orr: To the best of my knowledge, no. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I do not know.

Something keeps ringing in my head today, and that is "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread ." I do not know why, but I am wondering if you do not feel that probably the appropriate thing for the government to do in this case, recognizing that they did not even bother to contact yourself or anybody else to find out what was really going on and rushed in with this-I can only, I hate to attribute motives here, assume that there may have been some political agenda perceived which I just quite frankly cannot understa nd, because if they cannot figure out, in this case, that they are proposing a situation in which you will end up with less service for ambulance because you are basically setting up a situation in which a strike might happen, and I recognize bargaining is going on, as compared to what we have suggested which would result in 100 percent service, which is what you have with arbitra tion, you settle it without a strike action-I am wondering if, given the circumstances, you do not feel that the government itself, quite apart from whatever the city has indicated, might be better off, instead of rushing into this, perhaps taking some time, perhaps letting the collective barg aining process continue in this case and perhaps looking at some of the alternatives that we have put forward and I think have some significant benefits.

I really sit here and I wonder if maybe part of what we have here is not a colossal communications gap. By the way, I point this in the direction of the government, because as much as people can criticize the City of Winnipeg for applying for this, you know, it is the government that is bringing in this bill. I am still wondering how they can bring in a bill like this based on relatively limited information, as we are finding out today, information that presumably was completely inaccurate.

So I am wondering if you do not feel there maybe needs to be some cooling off, some clearer heads on this particular situation, and perhaps some moving toward some more creative solutions, rather than what we are dealing with. Mr. Orr: We would be quite happy to consider any alternatives that might be suggested. As we have said all along, we are here to try to negotiate a collective agre ement. That is what we would like to do. If somebody would like to speak with us about doing something different than what is being contemplated right now, we would be happy to talk to whoever wanted to do that. Mr.

Ch airperson: Mr. Lamoureux, for a very short question. Mr. Lamoureux: A very short question, just so that I am clear on it. You had indicated that the very earliest opportunity for a strike would have been when Mayor Murray had gotten back. When would that actually be? Mr. Orr: In fairness to the city, Mr. Lamoureux, we could strike right now. We had indicated that we would not take any action along those lines, not a disruption or anything like that. He will be back at the end of May. There is a meeting of the Executive Policy

May 19 , 19 99 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 Committee, I think it is either the 2nd or 3rd of June, which is a Wednesday of that week, and we had said that we would want to see what is going to have happened by that time and that if we saw ourselves to be making progr ess, to be heading in the right direction, that we were more than prepared to continue to do that. The other side of that coin, again, in fairness to the city, is if that was not happening, then we do have the strike mandate. We are not trying to hide that particular issue. Mr. Ch airperson : Thank you very much, Mr.

Orr, for your presentation and your indulgence on the questions. Mr. Orr: Thank you. Mr. Ch airperson: The next presenter I call is Mr. Alex Forrest, the United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg. Mr. Forrest, have you a presentation for distribution? Mr. Alex Forrest (United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg): Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson : Thank you. The Cler k will distribute. Mr. Forrest, you may proceed. Mr. Forrest: I appear here today on behalf of the firefighters of Winnipeg. Fire fighters have always made the public well-being and safety our paramount concern.

We are here today because we are concerned about that public's well-being, and we are seeing an injustice being done to the paramedics. These are highly trained, highly professional people who work side by side with the firefighters of Winnipeg. No one knows the value of the paramedics to the citizens of Winnipeg better than the firefighters. To take away their right to strike and not give them binding arbitra tion is wrong and does no service to the citizens of Winnipeg. We have given up the right to strike for decades. However, we have also had the right for binding arbitra tion.

The end result is that the firefighters of Winnipeg have never taken any job action, and the citizens of Winnipeg have never been without firefighting protection. If you go forward with this piece of legislation, I believe it will not mean uninterrupted paramedic service to the city of Winnipeg. I have looked over this legislation quickly and, quite frankly, I really do not understand what this idea of partial ability to strike will mean. It is being rushed through , I agree. It is being rushed through, and that is a dangerous thing to do when you are dealing with people's lives and the partial ability to strike.

If you move forward on this, does this mean that it has to go to the parti es to negotiate what the right to strike will be? Is that not why we are here today? The paramedics and the city cannot come to any understanding, and now you are asking them to say what is essential service and what is not essential service. Does that mean that if a person here, if a strike occurs, if it is a heart attack, the paramedics will come and serve that person and take him to the hospital, but if that same person falls and breaks a leg, he has to stay there and will be without an ambulance, be without paramedic service?

Well, that scares me. That scares firefighters because we are going to be the ones there. We are going to be the ones, and we may have to load them in the back of our rescues and take them to the hospital because that is the contingency plan that we are being told, even with this piece of legislation, and that is wrong. If you pass this legislation as it stands, it is a recipe for future problems. You will have frustration, anger, and hard feelings. You have to look at the percentage that their membership went to their executive with with a strike mandate. It was in the 90s percenti le.

Binding arbitra tion does not pose any problems for the negotiation process. For decades we have had a collective agreement with the Winnipeg Fire Department and no problems have arisen. It is merely a tool to furth er labour relations between management and unions, and it has worked well in the fire department. As a matter of fact, our last two collective agreements that we went for did not have to go to binding arbitra tion. We can get together and we can do it, but if you take away that right of binding arbitration, you are taking away the right

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 of the union to be able to negotiate properly. What you are doing is you are basically penalizing a group of individuals for wanting to serve the public. Well, you serve the public, and I believe the public would want fairness to be given to these param edics. That is all we are asking for. That is all the paramedics are asking for, and that is all firefighters are asking for to assure that we will not have any interrupt ion to paramedic services in this city.

Why you do not wish to support these individuals, who every day deal in life and death decisions, firefighters just cannot understand that. We are trying to muddle through this. We are trying to do whatever we can. We are the ones that are going to be out there. We are the ones that are going to have to respond to every medical emergency, which we do now, and we are going to have to make decisions. All we are asking for is fairness, honour and order, and these are the reasons why the paramedics should have binding arbitrati on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you very much, Mr.

Forrest, for your pres entation. Mr. Doer: In earlier presentations today, it was indicated that the ambulance attendants are located in four out of the five fire halls in Winnipeg. Is that correct in terms of the location of the people there? Mr. Forrest: Actually we have 26 fire stations and, I believe, there are paramedic machines in five fire halls. I could be wrong, but I believe it is five. Mr.

Doer: The government's press release yesterday stated: The minister noted that the City of Winnipeg essential services are covered by legislation to avoid service disrupti ons, including the Fire Department and the Winnipeg Police Service. Is it not true that you do not have the government's Essential Services legislation in your way of resolving disputes? You have The Fire-and I am going to get the right term here The Fire Departments Arbitration Act, is that not correct? Mr. Forrest: That is correct. * (1530 ) Mr.

Doer: I am a little concerned that the press release then gives the impression that the method of establishing or resolving essential services in the city of Winnipeg for the Fire Department and the Police Service is The Essential Services Act which is a separate and complete and total act providing for binding arbitrati on. Is that not correct? Mr. Forrest: That is true. Mr. Doer: You mentioned the contingency plans.

Obviously, firefighters are going to be affected by any contingency plans because on the response you are there and you work with the ambulance attendants, what is your under standing now of how this Essential Services legislation will work? We asked in committee today, in some of the media reports it was quoted as saying a fraction of the ambulance attendants would be required for essential services, and then there was another comment about up to half. If there are 10 ambulances on, on a Friday night, we know that all 10 will not be on, but we do not know how many will be on.

What will that mean for the public good, in your estimation, based on what you have heard about contingency serv ices? Mr. Forrest: That is an excellent question because we have posed this to Chief Shoemaker and we have asked him what this contingency plan is centred around private ambulances and centred around the firefighters absorbing with the rescue units. We have rescue units that are available to transport individuals on life and death exceptional circumstances. Last year, I believe, we transported three to four times in the back of a rescue.

What I am concerned of is right now we are strapped in staffing levels. We have recently had 52 firefighting positions cut from our service, and now we are going to be asked to cover the paramedic services and to be asked to transport when we do not have members trained in person transport. How would you like to be transported in the back of a rescue? I do not think that is a viable alternative and we have

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 told Mr. Shoemaker that. It will cause labour problems between us and the chief and the council if they attempt to try and use firefighters in that way. Mr. Doer: Well, I can answer your question. I would like to be in the ambulance as opposed to the situation you described. So when they are asking us to pass this act, there is no contingency plan. Mr. Forrest: As I understand, there are many different aspects that the chief has looked into: priva te ambulances, and what he has discussed with me. As for what is going on beyond that, I cannot comment on. Mr.

Doer: So when the people say that this legislation will protect the public interest, in your estimation as somebody on the front lines, that is not entirely true is it? Mr. Forrest: As a matter of fact it could hurt t� public interest just as much as if there was a full-blown strike. Mr. Doer: So there is no contingency plan, not all services will be provided, the public was already stret ched on the firefighters side and on the ambulance side. Have you heard any good reason why middle management at the City of Winnipeg has binding arbitra tion and ambulance att'endants do not? Mr.

Forrest: No, cannot answer that. Mr. Doer: It is our responsibil ity to take requests from the city and sometimes accept it and sometimes rej ect it. This Legislature is not a surrogate of the city, and right now, there is a sta{J.dard of settlement for ambulance attendants in Brandon and in Thompson. As we understand it, it is binding arbitra tion. Have you studied the situation, and does it work well for the people of those communities? Mr. Forrest: No, I have not looked into that situation well enough to comment on that at this time. I am sorry. Mr.

Doer: The people in Brandon and Thompson do work with the firefighters, and the firefighters in those communities, as I understand it, have binding arbitra tion and again have not withdrawn services in those two communities, along with the ambulance attendants for decades, as you have described here. Mr. Forrest: That is correct, but you have to realize that it is dual-trained firefighter-para medics there. It is a bit of a different situation. Mr. Doer: Yes, I accept that situation. You are basically saying that you have studied this act, and it is the partial ability to strike in your estimation, is it not?

Mr. Forrest: What worried me yesterday was watching the media conference in which Councillor Vandal and Chief Shoemaker were explaining this act. One of the things that they put forward to us was, well, we are not taking away their total right to strike. We are just going to try and figure out what is essential service. We will come back to the table. We will negotiate that, and then you guys can strike on what you want. Well, as I said before, that is the reason why they are here right now is they have not been able to agree on anything and now you are going to ask that.

What is going to happen is I am very concerned with this because there is going to be action outside this legislation. They are going to try and push this legislation. Why not have a complete legislation that is well thought out, put forward, so that the citizens of Winnipeg know exactly that they are going to receive proper paramedic services and that firefighters will not be put in a position of conflict of interest? Mr. Doer: You mentioned that firefighters would be put in a position of conflict of interest. Could you describe what they would mean for the public, its impact on the public? Mr.

Forrest: What happens is that right now our priority is fire suppression, rescues of every nature. Now what happens is that they are going to be taking us into the situation of perf orming medical transfers. For instance, in south Winnipeg, right now after the cuts, we basically have one fire pump that is going to be doing the medical response for all of the south Pembina, St. Germain and St. Norbert area. What will occur then is that machine is going to

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 40 be run ragged transporting. Well, that is wrong because then that area will not have fire protection. As well, you have to realize we work day in, day out with paramedics. They are in our stations, they eat with us. They are working with us on a daily. We go to every single medical call with them, and now the chief is going to ask us to work with scab labour and in private ambulance systems. Well, if that is not going to cause more labour unrest, I do not what will. Mr.

Doer: If you were told today that "ess ential services" legislation would in fact protect the vital services to the citizens, that it provides the balance between free collective bargaining and access to lifesaving care in an emergency, if this legislation and this amendment was proposed for the firefighters, would you accept that as the result of this legislation for our firefighters? Mr. Forrest: We would do ever ything we could within our power, and we would ask the public to support us. We would do everyth ing we can to stop this type of legislation, because it is not in the public's well-be ing. Mr.

Doer: So the statements from the government that this would provide for lifesaving care in an emergency and be a balance of free collective bargaining, and it would be our first concern to ensure patients do not have to worry about this lifesaving care, in your estimation as somebody on the front lines, this amendment is not achieving what the govern ment is saying it will achieve by this proposal before us today? Mr. Forrest: That is 100 percent correct. You have to realize you have to look at the high percent of paramedics that felt that they were being treated unf airly.

If you ordered them back to work, would you not want a paramedic that is there that wants to treat you if you are having a heart attack rather than a paramedic that is having a gun to his head saying, you have to be there? It just does not make sense. Mr.

Doer: So in order for the government to achieve the ability to have free collective bargaining, which the members of this Legislature support through other legislation and have the first concern that patients do not have to worry about being able to access lifesaving care in an emergency, our proposal is going to be binding arbitrat ion for the ambulance attendants as an alternative to this legislation. Their proposal is The Essential Services Act, but we all agree on the objectives.

I mean, we are not disagreeing on the objectives with the govern ment and the paramedics are not either or the ambulance attendants are not either. Would the binding arb itration option be a better option to achieve the objectives that the government has in its press release, which I think are obviously the priorities of the public? Mr. Forrest: All the paramedics have ever wanted was a fair deal from the city. What this would do is it would enable an objective third party person or a chair to come forward and say exactly what paramedics are worth to this city.

That is all they are asking for is fairness. * (1 540) Mr. Doer: We had Ms. Johnson present a brief this morning, and as I can recall it, she said there is a chain of interventions for the citizens of Winnipeg, a chain of people. One is the firefighter. The second link on the chain is the ambulance attendants and paramedics that are in dispu te now and before this legislation today. Of course, the third group would be taking a person to the emergency ward which would be dealing with a doctor.

The doctors now have arbitration voluntarily by the government, and it took us about 30 days to convince them it made more sense. I hope it does not take 30 days for the ambulance attendants. The Fire Department has arbitra tion, so it seems like two links of the chain have arb itration and one link does not. Does it not make sense for the chain to be equally protected with the protection of binding arbitra tion? Mr. Forrest: Yes, it does. Mr.

Ashton: Just briefly, I am increasingly concerned as I see this unravel here with this piece of legislation that was rushed in by the government, because from your presentation I think we are probably getting a clearer answer than we did earlier today from the city itself

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 about what might happen if this legislation is passed. In fact, the city went out of its way to say: oh, no, no, under this Essential Services legislation we will make sure there is a strike. They will be able to draw some level of services and that, by the way, is sort of the paradox we are in here in the sense that we are proposing what we feel is probably a more sane alternative, something the paramedics themselves are looking at, but it is obvious if that happens, the first thing that happens is you have reduced paramedic services.

What you are saying then is if we have this legislation, and there is a strike which the paramedics do not want, they would prefer arbitrat ion, that there will be reduced fire services as well because you will essentially be putting firefighters in the position of having to do the work of paramedics, and quite apart from the legitimate point you raise about what relationship this is going to lead to, putting firefighters in that very difficult position, obviously that is going to come at the expense of firefighting services from what I understand. Is that not basically the ramifications of passing this bill? Mr.

Forrest: That is exactly it. We are one big puzzle from medical response within the city of Winnipeg. You take one piece out of the puzzle, other areas will suffer. Fire suppression will suffer if the paramedics go on strike in any way. Mr. Ashton : Well, then, Mr. Chairperson, I might add by the way we have these legislative committees on all bills; it is actually one of the unique features of the Manitoba Legislature.

If ever I have seen a case for what we are hearing at the committee showing just how ill advised the course we are on is, and I say "we," it is really the government that has chosen this, but obviously all members of the Legislature have to be involved, it is this.

By the way, I want to thank you for pointing out clearly the fact that unless some other course is chosen, other than what the government has agreed to in this case, we could be looking at a situation within a matter of weeks or even a shorter period of time where you may end up with, and I am just try ing to put this in perspective, paramedics being on strike when they do not want to be on strike, they want to go the route of arbitra tion.

The people of Winnipeg -by the way I am from Thompson, so we are under arbitra tion, we do not have to worry about this-may be in a situation of having reduced paramedic services and having firefighting at risk. I just, quite frankly, do not understand how the government got themselves into this situation. I am wondering if there are any suggestions I suppose other than withdrawing this and going the arbitra tion route that you might have for the government and how they can get out of the mess I think they have created by rushing in yesterday without contacting the paramedics.

I assume, by the way, if they have not contacted the paramedics, they have not contacted you either, because it just makes no sense to my mind to deal with legislation this way, to sort of rush things in. As I said, where fools rush in. I do not to mention what that analogy applies to, but it seems to be rushed. It seems to me to my mind that the public interest, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out here, and the city of Winnipeg is very much at risk on this. I guess I thank you for giving us in this committee a real sense of what will happen if this legislation is passed. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Forrest. Mr. Kowalski: Yes. At scenes of fires, major fires, is there usually an ambulance that stands by in case of an injury to a firefighter? Mr. Forrest: That is true. At all ma jor fires there are ambulances. Many times, if it is a ma jor fire, you will have two ambulances with paramedics there. Everybody knows how dangerous firefighting is, and again firefighters will need the services of paramedics as much as any citizen in Winnipeg. So we have a vested interest in this as well. Mr.

Kowalski: That is what I was thinking when you were talking about the difficult position that your members would be put in. You talked about having to do the service for the

M�y 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 42 ambulance attendants but also hear the clients of that. If there is reduced ambulance service, it is putting your members at risk, is it not? Mr. Forrest: That is correct. Mr. Kowalski: I am still very puzzled here because, you know, I am a member of the Winnipeg Police Association, a member and part of that bargaining unit. I know the climate under Susan Thompson, there was a feeling that maybe that Executive Policy Committee of that administration was not that friendly to unions.

Since Mayor Glen Murray has taken office, I understand now that a budget has been produced that reduced the number of fire positions by 52 firefighters, that now this legislation is asked by Glen Murray . Is the firefighters association surprised by the tactics or the way Mr. Glen Murray is proceeding with its labour unions in the city of Winnipeg? Mr. Forrest: We were vastly disappointed with Mayor Murray when he cut the 52 positions when we were already short-staffed. I will tell the committee here today that very few, if any, firefighters have any confidence in our mayor today. Mr.

Chair person: Thank you very much, Mr. Forrest, for your presentation and your indulgence in the questioning. �, _ I call next Dr. Jon Gerrard, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba. I would still ask to maintain order and decorum in the proceedings. Dr. Gerrard, have you any written presentation that you would like to distribute? Mr. Jon Gerrard (Leader, Liberal Party of M�nitoba): Because of the speed with which this has moved, I will make an oral presentation but not a written presen tation. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, Dr. Ger rard . You may proceed. Mr.

Gerrard: I am here today to call for a little blti>f calm and reason and fairness, rather than a sort of hasty, knee-jer k, short-term reaction, which I believe that the bill in its present form represents. I think that, first and foremost, it is very impor tant that we have respect for the health care professionals, the paramedics who are involved here.

We recognize that they have worked very hard for the people of Winnipeg for many years, often in the last few years parti cularly under very difficult conditions, in many circ umstances putting in a lot of overtime and working hard for citizens, saving lives, doing and being and acting very responsibly in their efforts to do the very best for people of Manitoba as they work in the ambulances and providing what is very impor tant health care for people in Winnipeg and, indeed, people from outside of Winnipeg who end up for one reason or another in the city.

I would suggest that given what is happening with the re-organization of services, the fact that the paramedics and the firefighters are really working side by side, that due consideration really does need to be given to the par allelism in terms of the legislation dealing with firefighters and with paramedics, and that the introduction of binding arbitra tion as part of the solution here would be a responsible measure which would provide a paral lelism with how firefighters are treated to how paramedics are treated. It would also appear to me that it is rather impor tant to have input from the City of Winnipeg.

I think we have heard from members of the paramedics as a responsible people who have worked hard on behalf of citizens to provide good health care, that they are not rushing into a strike but rather, given reasonable discussions, are ready and willing to wait until Mayor Murray ret urns. Quite frankly, I think that the mayor himself probably does not feel that this has the sort of urgency that the current provincial government seems to be giving it, because if he felt that it had this sort of urgency, he would immediately be coming back to deal with it.

I suspect that Mayor Murray, himself, must feel that this matter can be dealt with on an ongoing basis with a responsible union who have felt that they have a duty to people in Winnipeg to provide service and much-needed service. We should thank them for that service, and the government should be prepared to deal

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 43 responsibly and pass legislation which has an aspect of fairness and that there is indeed some time for a calm and reasoned approach, rather than a rushed approach to put this legislation through . * (1 550) Mr. Doer: I am not sure whether you are for or against the bill. I know you do not want it to go as quickly as it is being proposed, and we wanted to slow it down yesterday .

If the city does not agree to binding arb itration, and if the employees do-l mean, I know we need the input, but the city has met with the government twice and it has got a letter on the table today requesting Essential Services legislation. Are you then supporting binding arbitra tion as a method of resolving this dispute? Mr. Gerrard: It would seem to me that given the discussions, that we should not rush this legislation.

It should not be rushed through, but the mayor should be given an opportunity to reth ink his position vis-a-vis the request he has made and to make a request that would include binding arbitrati on. This, clearly, should be on the table, and from a perspective of a balanced approach, it would seem to me would provide a better balance than the current legislation. Mr. Doer: Well, I agree that it is best to have two parti es agreeing when we deal with the public interest, but, right now, we have one party asking for essential services and we have another party asking for binding arbitra tion.

Yesterday, in Hansard, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) stated that it would be desirable to have both sides agreeing to binding arb itration; that is what we would like to see. So would we. It would be the responsible thing to do as it goes to the committee, but if we do not see that consensus coming from the city, I think, then, there is a responsibil ity for us to look at essential services as being the answer to resolving this particular issue. So I just want to know where we are going. Point of Order Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Chairperson, the reason why it is a point of order is because we have a presentation, and I would not want the quote to be taken out of context in order to solicit an answer. I think in fairness to the presenter or anyone else, they should ensure that they understand the complete context of the speech. In no way did I say that we would support the legislation being given third reading. I did indicate that we were prepared to see it go into committee. So I would not want the Leader of the New Democratic Party to try to give the impression that I had no problems in terms of supporting this particular bill. Mr.

Chairperson: The Chairman notes the concern here and asks that when questions are put that relevant accuracy be directed to the presenters when questioned, because there are times when presenters are not aware of all the relevant information, and I think it is only incumbent upon us as committee members to ensure that the presenter be presented with the relevant information. I indicate that Mr. Lamoureux does not have a point of order, but the point well taken. Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairperson, the normal procedure in this House is that when a point of order is raised, the Chair seeks advice from other members. I note that our Leader and certainly myself were interested in giving advice. I think it is highly inappropriate to only allow the member to make a point of order and then for you to say afterwards, without advice, that it is not a point of order and then say the member has a point. By insinuation, Mr. Chairperson, it could be taken that you are suggesting that the comments were taken out of context when, in fact, we read them directly from Hansard.

I know we have a critical issue here. The presenter is here as the Leader of a political party. Obviously, he is putting forward the views of his political party on this issue, and I think it is a very impor tant question here, whether the Liber al Party supports arbitra tion under the current circu mstances which is where it certainly is agreed to by the paramedics or whether they are saying they will support it only

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 44 if the city agrees to it, in addition to the paramedics, which indeed I believe was the point put forward by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) yesterday . I think it is appropriate, and I would hope there was no suggestion from the Chair that we were doing anything other than asking what would be a normal question to the Leader of a political party here, whether indeed there is a consistent position on this issue, a consistent position from the Liberal Party, which is very much dir ectly related to this bill. So I hope that was not the intent, Mr. Chair. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ashton. will give you the same kind of comment. believe that your point of order is really not a point of order, but I take your advice as advice being offered, and I accept that. *** Mr. Chair person: Now, Mr. Doer, to continue your question, or, Dr. Gerrard, with yours. Mr. Gerrard: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) has a strong and clear difference of opinion with the mayor of the City of Winnipeg, but rather than to seek conflict, it would seem to me to at least give the mayor an opportunity at this juncture to revise his position before the provincial government arbitrari ly proceeds with binding arbitra tion. I think that given due consider ation, given some time for input from the mayor, binding arbitration is a reasonable approach to take, but I think that there is time here for calm and reason rather than to foment conflict, and let us see if the mayor would, in fact, revise his position. Mr.

Doer: Are you aware that the proposal to go to binding arbitra tion has been on the table for a couple of years now and has been re jected by the city? Mr. Gerrard: Well, I think that we are dealing with legislation which was put before the Legislature clearly in some haste, that, yes, we are dealing with issues which have some history and some duration, but I think there is time for some calm and reason at this point and that the mayor should be given one other opportunity . [interjection] Mr.

Chairperson: I would ask that the members maybe quiet down a bit, so I can at least hear the presenter's response and the questions. Mr. Doer: Well, I agree that it is desirable to have the city and the union in agre ement to come forward with binding arbitra tion. When we were in office, we did that with the police officers. When we were in office, we did that with the firefighters. I have talked to people at the city; I have talked to the union, and in a perfect world, we would have agreement, but we do not.

We are dealing with a dispute, and our job in the Legislature is to deal with the public interest I guess my question to you is, the city sometimes is right, this Legislature sometimes is right, sometimes it is wrong. It does not mean it is conflict. It just means that we have the ability to disagree. I disagree with the city. I have no hesitation saying that. I would like them to come to an agreement with our proposal on binding arbitra tion. Having said that, the union is saying binding arbitra tion. The firefighters are saying binding arbitra tion.

I think the public would prefer to have I 00 percent of the services provided, rather than The Essential Services Act which is less than that, and, yes, I would love a perf ect world to hope that we could get approval from the city. That is obviously the best alternative, but saving that, is it the position of the Liberal Party that they would supp ort the Essential Services legislation, albeit at a later time if the city at a later time did not agree to arbitra tion? Mr.

Gerrard: I think that we are here because we want to preserve the public interest, and we do not want to have a loss of ambulance services, paramedic services. I believe that it is quite clear that the sort of hasty legislation, you know, taking away the right to strike, is not the answer. As we saw with the NDP government in Saskatchewan and their approach to the nurses, this, in fact, did not eliminate the potential for strikes, but there needs to be, as I pointed out, some calm and reasoned approa ch. It seems to me that in that calm and reasoned

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 approa ch, the next step is to go back to the mayor and to press upon the mayor the importance of reconsidering his position. Should he not, then we are in a hypothetical situation. My view, and our view as a Liberal Party, is that binding arbitra tion is a pref erab le solution to this bill. * (1 600) Mr. Doer: I am not going to go through the history of the federal government and collective barg aining with public employees. I think it is counterproductive to this bill, nor do I want to defend everything that happened in Saskat chewan all the time either.

An Honourable Member: We do not want to be here until midnight. Mr. Doer: No, that is right. We are going to be moving an amendment. We are at second committee now. We would obviously like the government to slow down. We would like it to allow us to try to get a consensus with the city. I am sure you have talked to people at the city, so have we. We have talked to the union representa tives, it is great. This province has re jected the advice of the city before . The city proposed in the mid-'90s, I recall, that the collective bargaining agreement agreed to by the civic workers be overturned by legislation.

The province in its wisdom, in the public interest, said no. The province has the ability to accept proposals from the city under good advice, or not accept them in the public interest. We think that the binding arbitration amendment which we will be moving today is superior to The Essential Services Amendment moved by the government, and I would urge your support on that amendment when we make it.

Yes, in a perf ect world we would want perfect agreement, but in an imperf ect world we have to deal with the public interest first, and we think the public interest is best served by binding arbitra tion, and we will be moving that amendment at committee. We hope we get all-party support for it. Would you support that amendment? Mr. Gerrard: Well, I look forward to seeing the amendment when it is written out and to having a discussion on that once we see that.

As I said, I think that binding arbitration is a desirable alterna tive, but I think that what this province needs is a co-operative relationship between the province and the City of Winnipeg, and that we should work very hard to achieve that rather than one party working arbitra rily on one side or the other. Mr. Laurendeau: Dr. Gerrard, I have looked forward to having you before a committee for some time actually. I have a whole list of questions for you, but then I left them back in the office. Where I would like to start is, Dr.

Gerrard, the Liberal Party, I think, has made a stand here today, because I heard you speaking about the arbitra tion process. So would you support compulsory arbitration for all services covered under The Essential Services Act? Mr. Gerrard: We are dealing here with the paramedics, right, and the ambulance. I think that my appearance before the committee really is restricted to the bill that is here rather than trying to make sweeping policy suggestions for everybody who is covered under the act. Mr.

Laurendeau: Then you are aware, though, that today we are dealing with The Essential Services Amendment Act which is actually The Essential Services Act in that these employees that you are speaking of, the paramedics, would fall under the same category as all other services within the provincial government that fall under this act. To make one compuls ory, the way you are speaking of now, or making one compulsory through an amendment as the NDP are looking at, we would probably be looking at, in fairness, compulsory, not negotiated, but compulsory arbitration for all people within the civil service.

Is that correct? Mr. Gerrard: I would suggest to you that it is beyond the scope of what I would comment on here, right, but I will say this: I think it is important in the context of the role of the paramedics in the emerging close working relationship between paramedics and fire fighters, that these two groups be treated in a similar fashion in terms of the binding process of the arbitrat ion or the negotiation process and the legislation.

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 46 Mr. Laurendeau: Thank you, Dr. Gerrard, for that answer. So you are saying that we as a Legislature today should somehow roll the paramedics in with the firefighters arbitra rily without going through the city for consultation or negotiations. Mr.

Gerrard: I think I said very clearly that I would like input from the city, right, before taking the next step because I think that this is a situation where there is some time for common reason, and that the city and the province seem to have rushed this forward without fully considering the situation of the paramedics and the fact that their situation is quite similar to firefighters as emergency workers and that there needs to be due consideration of the position of people who are paramedics in relationship to firefighters, and that that is a closer connection than with some of the other people that you are talking about who are now covered by The Essential Services Act.

Mr. Laurendeau: Thank you, Dr. Gerrard. You know, I am glad you clarified that because I had some concerns that you were starting to slip to the other side and starting to support the NDP on their position of compulsory arbitra tion. That scared me because that is what the NDP did in 19 70 with the firefighters. They never negotiated; it just happened. At least in the '80s when the police were brought under the arbitrat ion, it was agreed upon by the Police Service and the City of Winnipeg. I do believe that is exactly how this should be taking place, in negotiations between the city and the paramedics.

I do believe that the City . of Winnipeg and the paramedics should be g1ven that opportunity. So, now that we have this act before us, did I understand you to say that the Liberals were bringing forward an amendment-[interjection] Well, no, I thought that is what I understood someone to say. Mr. Gerrard: What I have heard is that the NDP are bringing forward an amendment, and we would look very carefully at the nature of that amendment and then come to a position. Mr. Chairper son: Thank you, Dr. Gerrard. Mr. Laurendeau? Mr. Laurendea u: No, I am done. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Ar e there any further- Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Just a comment, Dr. Gerrard. You opened your comments by talking about respect for paramedics, and I just want to say that as a former nurse who has worked for many, many years with paramedics, I have absolutely huge respect for their ability to do their job, and that this legislation does not have anything to do with anybody's lack of respect for their ability to do their job. They do an excellent job of what they do, and I have a huge respect for them. So I just wanted to make that comment. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, we have had a very good discussion on this issue over the course of the day. Mr. Gerrard, I am curious, I did not quite understand your comments, did you or did you not have a discussion with Mayor Murray? Mr. Gerrard: Well, it is my understanding that Mayor Murray had put a letter on the table making this request. It would seem to me that in the current situation that there is some time for a calm and reasoned approach, and that the next step should be to go back to Mayor Murray and to say, look this is not similar to how the firefighters are treated.

It is a short-term solution, but I do not believe it is in the best int�rests of Manitobans as a long-term solution, and I think there is time to do this better. * (1610 ) Mr. Stefanson: So I take it then you did not have a discussion with Mayor Murray.

I am assuming that you read the letters of May 13, the letter of May 18 , from the mayor of the City of Winnipeg, and I am assuming that your colleagues have provided you with a copy of the letter dated May 19 from the acting mayor of the City of Winnipeg, Lillian Thomas, where she goes on to say, and she refers to the copy of Glen Murray' s letter of May 18 to the Minister of Health, which letter asks the government to bring forward this bill at the earliest opportunity . You have read those letters, I assume? They seem to contradict the impression you were

May 19 , 19 99 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 given from a discussion that you did not have with Mayor Murray is all I am suggesting. Mr. Gerrard: I talked about a personal discussion with Mayor Murray.

I do understand that the government, right, is in agre ement with the position stated by Mayor Murray and that the opposition is opposed to the position of Mayor Murray, but it seems to me that we do not have to immediately ram this legislation through and that we need time to look at an amendment being brought forward, that we need the time to go back to the mayor and to ask the mayor if this really is his final position on this. Mr. Stefanson: A simple question: I take it you agree that this is an essential service? The paramedics and the ambulances services, do you agree that it is an essential service? Mr.

Gerrard: This clearly is a vital service, right, for Manitobans, and we need to be assured for Manitobans that we will not have a strike, but I think that the best way to do that is not necessarily this legislation because, as we saw in Saskatchewan, legislation itself does not guarantee that you do not have strikes. What is impor tant is that the paramedics be treated in a fair and professional fashion and that legislation treats their rights as a union as important as public rights as well. I think that there is room for agreement and movement here from the current bill to something that is more balanced. Mr.

Stefanson: As I have indicated, we are having a good discussion about this legislation and options and variations to it, but I guess I was taken aback by a comment about a hasty reac tion. It would seem to me, Mr. Gerrard, that you think, you seem to acknowledge that this is an essential service. I am sure you are aware that they are in a legal strike position as of Monday evening.

If you are suggesting it is a hasty reaction for us as legislators to bring in a bill amendment, to get into this forum, to have delegations, to make a decision, you would prefer to sit back and do nothing and put the citizens of Winnipeg at risk. Mr.

Gerrard: I think that given the circum stances that we are in, that there is a union which has indicated in good faith that they are not going to proceed with a strike unless things get to a severe impasse, until Mayor Murray returns, that there is time at this juncture for some common reason rather than an approach which would have this bill put through in an overly hasty fashion. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Gerrard, surely you can appreciate, we have a request from one of the parti es outlining a concern.

One of the letters goes on to talk about, it is imperative that the safety and security of the citizens not be put at risk during the process. By having introduced this amendment to this legislation, it has led to this opportunity to have this discussion and come to some resolution. Obviously, that is an important part of this whole issue, as opposed to sitting back and doing nothing, when you can put the citizens at risk.

So I am going back to your comments suggesting that we are acting hastily, and so on, by having introduced an amendment to essential services that I think you agree is an essential service that is leading to ultimately a solution here, I believe, that will protect the citizens of the city of Winnipeg. Mr. Gerrard: I think we have had an opportunity right in the committee here to hear circumstances surrounding this legislation. That is quite beneficial, but clearly the government was asking for leave to move this forward at a very rapid pace.

What I would suggest in my remarks is solely that there is some time here and that it is impor tant that we move forward in a way that is effective, recognizes the professional nature and the responsible actions of the paramedics, as well as the request from the City of Winnipeg, and that perhaps there is room here for a more balanced approach than this legislation in its initial form has suggested. Mr. Stefanson: On the assumption that you agree that this is an essential service, I want to go back to Mr. Laurendeau's question.

I did not quite understand your response to it whether or not you support compulsory binding arbitration for all employees that are covered by Essential Services legislation.

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 48 Mr. Gerrard: As I have indicated earlier, I believe in this instance we are dealing with the paramedics, the ambulance drivers and so on, that their situation is a close paral lel to the firefighters, and that they should be treated in a similar fashion to the firefighters. Rather than at this point try to suggest how everybody should be treated who is regarded as an essential service, I think let us focus in on the issue at hand which is the paramedics and their circum stances. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr.

Chairman, in light of no written address here, I just wanted to be perfectly clear. In your opening remarks, you stated that the paramedics, in your professional opinion, are effectively professional health care providers and an integral part within the health care delivery system in the province. Now, are those the two statements that you made in your opening remarks? Mr. Gerrard: Yes.

I think that the paramedics play a very important role, that they have had very substantial training for their role as paramedics, that they need to be treated as professionals and that they have a very impor tant function, as I said, within the health care delivery system. Mr. Faurschou: Thank you very much, Mr. Gerr ard . Before just leaving commentary, the honourable Leader of the Opposition at the committee table designed or described the linkages within the health care delivery system.

I just want to put on the record that when the patient is delivered to the hospital, before the emergency room doctor sees that patient, there is the emergency room nurse who triages that patient. So indeed, there is another link within that, and I just wanted the record to show the importance of the emergency room nurses. Thank you. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I just want to ask a very direct question because at the committee process within a few moments, we are going to be into clause by clause.

We in the New Democr atic Party have been hoping very much for support from the Liberal members, and I know cer tainly listening to the comments from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) this morning, I think we are very much on the same wavelength. In a moment, we are going to be moving an amendment. Actually it is written now, and we are quite prepared to share it with members of the committee. Just to understand the sequence, we have this bill.

Unless the government pulls the bill in a few moments, we are going to be dealing with either amending the bill or, in this case if the amendment is not successful, of voting on that bill afterwards. I am just wondering if you can give us some sense of what the Liber al position would be on our amendment-and I am quite prepared to do it in a moment. I guess in a way I am hoping there is not going to be a situation where I think we are developing towards a consensus on the opposition side.

If we move arbitra tion under the fire departments act, I assume from your comments you would at this point in time not support that. I assume you are suggesting that we somehow track down the mayor-! believe he is in Greece, actually-and if that be the case, since after that if we are defeated by the government on that amendment, we are then faced with a vote on the bill as a whole. Would you recommend supporting the bill or opposing the bill? Because I think our position is fairly clear. We are moving the amendment, and we will not support the bill if it is not amended.

We have already indicated, by the way, that we will bring in a separate bill, if necessary, to bring paramedics under the same treatment as fire fighters. So we are very clear in our position. I am just wondering if you could give us some idea of the official Liber al position on (

a) yes or no to arbitra tion at this moment, (

b) yes or no on the bill, and (

c) should there be another bill that brings it in. Unfortunately, in a perfect world again, we might have time to sort of think about this, but in the world of the Legislature we have to make a decision in a few moments. I am hoping that your statement will be consistent with the Liberal members and the press, and actually we hope to have a united Legislature on this. Surely, when it comes to paramedic services in this province, we can work together. So I appreciate your comments. *

(1620) May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 49 Mr. Chairperson: I am not sure which question I am supposed to ask Mr. Gerrard now, but I am going to ask Mr. Gerrard to see whether he can sift, out of all the comments made around the table, the response to Mr. Ashton. Mr. Gerrard: It would appear to me that there is a logical sequence here, that the amendment should be proposed and seen. We have Liberal members of the Legislature who are well prepared to comment at which time that amendment has been proposed, and we will speak for the Liberal position once we have seen what the amendment is. Mr.

Doer: As you know, opposition members, the Liberals and New Democrats included, have less latitude on moving amendments than the government, so hopefully we can look at the substance of binding arbitrat ion which amends two acts as opposed to an amendment that is more difficult. I would encourage you to encourage the government of the day, let us go to an all-party consensus on binding arbitra tion and find the technical ways to do it. Would you not agre e? Mr. Gerrard: We await your amendment with great interest. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Gerrard, for your comments and your indulgence.

This now concludes the presentations that are before me, and I ask if there are any others in the audience that would like to make a presentation? Seeing none, we will then proceed. The next order of business would be comments from the minister. Mr. Stefanson: We have had a very good discussion on this entire issue today, a number of options, alternatives put before us. I think we should all thank the people who have made presentations for providing us additional information and food for thought on this very impor tant issue.

Again, I am at least encouraged and pleased by everybody supporting the overall objective of protecting this very important service for the citizens of Winnipeg. Based on the presentations that we heard this morning and now this afternoon, I will be proposing one amendment to the essential services bill. We certainly continue to believe, and it was apparent to everyone present today, that ambulance services are an essential service and the citizens of Winnipeg must have the assurance that essential services will be there when needed.

It is for this very reason that we have proposed that ambulance services of the City of Winnipeg be included within the definition

section of The Essential Services Act, but at the same time we have listened to the representa tives who have indicated that the negotiations process has not been completed, and it would be somewhat prema ture to consider alternatives to the negotiation process. I am sure everyone here today agrees that a negotiated settlement of the current dispu te is best resolved by the parties themselves. Both parti es, we believe, should make all efforts to resolve their differences, and both parties have a responsibility to reach an agreement on all matters.

At present the bill would come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent which potentially could occur as early as today under our parli amentary process. We will be proposing an amendment which will provide that the bill will come into force upon a day fixed by proclamation. The effect of the proposed amendment will be to permit both the City of Winnipeg and the ambulance workers to continue with the collective bargaining process without the imposition of Essential Services legislation into that negotiating process. As long as both parties -and we heard that from most

part ies, all parti es, here today-are prepared to continue to negotiate in good faith toward a satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues, there will be no requirement to proclaim the bill at this time. We believe that the proposed amendment will meet the needs of Winnipeg residents by ensuring that essential services be in place and will allow the two parti es to attempt to resolve their differences without forcing either party into a dispute resolution process not acceptable to the parties.

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 50 We would fully expect that both parti es will return to the bargaining table with the support of a conciliation officer, and we hear that the parties are back at the table tomorrow morning, so they should be returning to the table immediately meeting that requirement with the view to meet a collective agre ement at the table. So that is the amendment that we are proposing. We have copies to distribute to all members of the committee, and I would urge and request all members to support the bill amended and that particular amendment.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Do the opposition members have a comment? Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I would like to begin by thanking all of the presenters that came before this committee here today. I know it was a long process and we appreciate that you have taken the time to come here and your patience in waiting for your opportunity to present.

We have heard a number of issues dealing with this piece of legislation, but I think before I go into dealing with some of the comments that we heard today it is imp ortant to talk first about the letters that we only just yesterday became aware of. Now the government has had letters apparently we now have copies of- that were sent to them on May 13 of 19 99 from Mayor Glen Murray asking for The Essential Services Act to apply to the collective bargaining between the Emergency Response Services Employees and the City of Winnipeg.

It is interesting to note that the government held this letter and did not deal with it until May 18 , some five days later. Now you could have dealt with that letter at that time and I know, I do not know if members of the public know this, but when you are drafting amendments to legislation as we have had drafted for us, legislative counsel is very, very efficient in their operations and if the government was intent on drafting this bill they could have tabled this bill last week.

But instead they decided to hold this bill until Tuesday of this week which just coincidentally happens to be one of the potential days for an election, a prov incial general election to be called. So I am not sure if there was some ulterior motive that was perhaps involved in the Minister of Health holding this particular letter until such time as he would table his bill about a week later.

In addition to that, it is interesting to note too that when the essential services bill first came before us in 19 97, that bill was tabled by the Minister of Labour and perhaps I am a bit naive on this, but you would expect when you have an amendment to The Essential Services Act which falls directly under the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour, you would have the Minister of Labour tabling an amendment to that act, but here we have again the Minister of Health tabling an amendment to The Essential Services Act.

I am not sure if that ties in with the government's attempt to try and foster up some disagreement between members of the public service in this province, and in particular in this case the paramedics, to try and get offside to give the government an issue with which to go to the polls in this provinc e. But perhaps I am reading something into this that the government was not intending to do, at least I hope they were not.

When we go to the discussions with respect to the presentations here today, and I know that we very much, all of us, I believe, at least I hope, want to ensure that there is a protection for the health and safety, life and limb of the public. That is our first duty and responsibility, and I know in listening to the presentations that were made here today by the paramedics and the firefighters and others that it was very, very clear that you wanted to protect the life and limb, the security of the public. That is your first duty and responsibility, and you made that very clear in your presentations here today.

We respect you for that, and we agree with that. What we were asking for here today and what we asked for in our comments yesterday when the government sprung this Bill 27 on us without any consultation, I might add, on very short notice, is that we want the opportunity to have fair treatment take place and what we see is that in this case the government is proposing to have The Essential Services Act apply to members, paramedics that are providing the ambulance services for the citizens of Winnipeg. I hope what the members of the public who are

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 listening to this today recognize by the government's impending amendment that we have going to be coming before us here today is that you will continue to have this hammer hanging over your head through your negotiations process. As long as this govern ment has the ability to proclaim that piece of legislation, you will be under extreme pressure because at a moment's notice they can have that bill proclaimed and enacted into law. * (1 630) In addition to that, the question remains: who is going to decide upon proclamation of that bill?

Is it going to be the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) and the government that is now bringing in this piece of legislation to include you-wi thout any consultation, I might add-with members of the ambulance service employees association, or are you going to do it with the council, or are you going to do it with the mayor, or are you going to do it as a unilateral decision on the part of the government? You have a demonstrated history.

Since the government has a demonstrated history of no consultation with the employees directly affected in this, I have to assume or suspect that you will continue to take the same course of action, not consult with them, and that you will proclaim this at your own wish. Who knows what conditions you have set down? You have not described any criteri a for us here on what your intentions are with respect to your amendment. So I suspect that the employees and their elected represen tatives are going to continue to have this hammer hanging over their heads as they continue in their negotiations.

I hope that those negotiations are fruitful and successful, but you will be under extr eme pressure as a result of the amendment that the minister is proposing here. It is interesting to note, too, that this government, when we talk about The Essential Services Act, they can have binding arbitrati on for teachers. You can have binding arbitrati on for firefighters. You can have binding arbitrati on-now we hear today about middle management employees for the City of Winnipeg.

You can have police under binding arbitrati on, but, in your opinion, you do not think it is right to have binding arbitration for the very essential, critical services, ambulance services in the city of Winnipeg.

I do not comprehend the logic that the members of the government are using, when you can have teachers under binding arbitra tion, you can have police officers under binding arbitra tion, you can have firefighters under binding arbitra tion, you can have middle managers of the City of Winnipeg under binding arbitrati on, you have doctors in arbitrati on, but you will not have paramedics, ambulance service employees, under binding arbitrati on here. I do not understand the logic of the government when it comes to those decisions.

I listened to the comments that were made by the representatives of the firefighters in the city of Winnipeg here when they said: "To take away their right to strike and not to give them Binding Arbitrati on is wrong, and does no service to the Citizens of Winnipeg." Now these are the same employees who are dedicated to protect life and limb, the same as the paramedics who are here with us today. They have binding arbitrati on.

They know what the impact is going to be, and yet you are refusing to listen to the very experts, the front line workers who are providing those vital, crucial serv ices to the residents of Winnipeg. That is exactly what it is: essential serv ices. It is crucial. It is a critical service they are provi ding. As one of the presenters said here today: we bring emergency serv ices right into the living rooms of Winnipeggers who need it. I think that is a very telling statement.

They are telling us that they do not want to disrupt services, that all they want is to have a fair and reasonable collective agreement, and they are willing to work towards that. They are also telling us that they are willing to give up their right to strike in exchange for binding arbitrati on. I think that is a reasonable position to take. I do not understand why the government would be against such a reasonable position that has been presented here today by members of the public. I do not understand your logic. So, Mr.

Chairperson, I would suggest that this government should rethink the way you have brought forward this piece of legislation.

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 52 We think you have acted in haste. We know that the City of Winnipeg has made other suggestions to you in the past, as my Leader has referenced, with respect to when they wanted to roll back the wages in a freely negotiated collective agreement between the City of Winnipeg and its employees. The government, I think wisely, at that time said, no, we are not going to take that course of action.

We think that you should today, step back from this, look at what the request has been and take another course of action that will serve the residents of the city of Winnipeg to make sure they have that crucial service available to them, because, as we heard from the presenters, that if you go down the road of essential services, we risk losing some of the ambulance services here in such a situation. I do not want to have the residents of my community or the resi dents of the other communities in Winnipeg here put at risk as a result of your actions.

I have to ask, if something happens to one of those residents, who is going to be responsible for that? Because I think that is a crucial decision that you are making here today. If somebody dies as a result of this decision, who is going to be responsible for that? I hope you have taken that into consider ation. I know you did not take into consideration and consult with the people who are affected, the paramedics. You only listened to one side of the argument and then you acted, I think, in haste.

So I hope you would step back from the precipice, in this case, and recognize that there is a better way to deal with this. You can make a better decision to protect the critical services for Winnipeggers and to make sure that there is fair and just treatment for the paramedics. All they want to do is to continue to provide those crucia l services to Winnipeggers who need that service. All they are asking for is fair and just treatment. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chai rperson: We thank the member of the opposition for his opening statement. The next item on the agenda is the consideration of the bill.

We are all aware that during consider ation of a bill, the title and the

preamble are set aside until last. I will then deal with the bill on a clause-by-clause issue. Clause 1. Shall the item pass? Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, we did not necessarily get the opportunity to have opening remarks on it, and this is a good opportunity for me to also pose a few questions to the minister in regard to this particular bill. There is a lot that can be said in terms of the presenters, the types of presentations that we have had.

As I have indicated in the past, one of the nice things about the way in which we make final legislation is that we have the public input in our committee stage, and I have always very much valued that. I, over the last 11 years, have seen legislation amended because of the repres entation of individuals who have taken the opportunity to make presentation to the committee. I would applaud the efforts of all those who made presentation before the committee.

As I had indicated prior to second debate coming to an end that I was looking forward to committee meetings, we had not taken any sort of a position on this par ticular bill, rather we wanted to be somewhat open minded in terms of addressing this issue, and I think that that is important. Point of Order Mr. Kowalski: I am try ing to listen to my colleague, and the minute he started speaking people rose from the table, the minister's staff started circula ting things. There is no considera tion to listen to my colleague and to be quiet during his presentation.

Now I know we are not members of this committee, but we are members of the Legislative Assembly, and we could ask questions. I would like to hear his questions and the minister's response. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Kowalski. You certainly do have a point of order, and I would ask that order and decorum be maintained around the table. Thank you. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lamoureux, you may proceed. Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I thank the member for The Maples.

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 53 As was indicating that through representations before committees in the past, we have seen a lot of positive things come out of it. There are a number of presentations that I had learned from in terms of information that I did not know prior. A good example of that was the middle management. I was not aware that middle management had binding arbitra tion. It helped reinforce and solidify in my mind a number of concerns that I had going into the committee.

It is always good to be able to engage the presenters in order to try to get a little bit more of an understanding, so that we know at the end of the day what it is that we need to do. * (1 640) When you look on the surface, the amendment that is being proposed by the government, if you compare what the minister is proposing to what we have today, one could argue that he does make the bill better, but, Mr. Chairperson, what we are being asked to do is to trust the government-[inter jection] I do not know if that is, in fact, what Manitobans would want us to be doing on this very critical issue.

The Leader of the Liberal Party was very clear in terms of posing the question of what is the urgency. Is there not any sort of an obligation whatsoever of this government to look at the reality of the situation? Mr. Chair person: I am going to ask members one more time. If you have something to discuss or comments to make, there is a way to do that without interrupting the proceedings, and that is outside of the room and/or to the side of the room, as some are doing here. So I would ask the members around the table-[inter jection] Please give some consider ation to the presenter. Thank you. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Chairperson, as I was pointing out, the reality of the situation put in terms in which I believe all Manitobans, in particular people living in Winnipeg, who clearly understand that you have emergency services, the top three in Winnipeg: your police service, your fire department and your ambulance service or your paramedics, absolutely critical services. I do not think any one inside this committee room would challenge the importance of all three of those. We sat through and listened to presen tations.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party time and time again raised the issue of from 10 ambulances down to five ambulances and the impact that is going to take. We hear presentations from the fire service, a representative from the fire department, in terms of the impact that was going to have. I did not see a pretty picture being painted on it. Now, ifl take a look at those three areas, the Winnipeg Police Service has binding arbitra tion; the Winnipeg Fire Department has binding arbitra tion, and I think that is something which we as legislators should be taking into consideration.

There is a responsibil ity on our part to put things into some sort of a context in which we can evaluate and make a decision in which it is to the betterment of all Manitobans, who we want to put first and foremost ahead of whatever sort of decision we are in fact going to be making. One has got to ask the question: Why then are paramedics not being provided that same option of binding arbitra tion? I would have welcomed the opportunity to pose that question to a number of the members of City Council, some city councillors. Like many MLAs I try to keep myself fairly busy.

Unfortunately, I was not, even though the attempt was there, able to talk to any councillors direct. I am very much interested in knowing: Are there councillors-or what is the major ity opinion of city councillors? Do they see what many perceive as a natural injustice by not having the paramedics a part of the binding arbitra tion and having two other essential services being given binding arbitra tion? Do they not see the inequity in there, and if so, why then no presentation to that effect? I think the member for the Maples (Mr. Kowalski) brought up some valid points.

When he says that there was no representation coming from the other side, from the City Council, the people who are asking us to pass this legislation, when the Leader of the Liberal Party says that we do not have any inclination from Mayor Glen

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 54 Murray on whether or not he and the local government would be prepared to look at binding arbitrati on. You know, these are things which I think are important. I can appreciate the sense of urgency no doubt that some might perceive with respect to this. I, too, am not going to do anything to compromise the health of, in parti cular, Winnipeggers or other Manitobans who rely on this service. I do not believe the paramedics are try ing to put in a scare tactic.

In fact, when we posed the question, the whole issue of why it is that they had the strike vote, I thought it was very telling as to why they went for the strike vote in the first place, and then to get a sound endorsation of 94 percent, overwhelming, I think that we as MLAs should take note of the 94 percent that said that they wanted to give the strike mandate. We have to at least try to understand why it is that the union sought that par ticular strike vote, and it was to try to get better negotiations on the issues that are impor tant to them, and one of those issues was in fact binding arbitra tion.

We cannot say that was not an impor tant issue, Mr. Chairperson. How can you blame, if you ar e' a paramedic and you look at the individuals you are working side by side with, and they are told that they are an emergency service, they are essential but you are not, so you are not going to be given binding arbitra tion, at least until this legislation came forward . Now they are being told that they are a part of the essential services. Well, many of us would have argu ed that they have always been a part of the essential services, and one has to respect that fact.

When we look at the reasons as to why they had the strike vote and the indication was from the presenter that their inclination was not to exploit the strike vote as long as there were some signs of forward movement, that they were not going to be running into a strike, at least until ow:. mayor returned providing the mayor and City Council another opportunity to address the issue. At least that was the impression that I was given.

That is why the amendment that the minister is putting forward is to say well, look, we want to be sensitive to what was being said today in committee, so what we are prepared to do is we will pass this legislation, and after we have passed it the only change we will make to it is we will not make it law the moment it gets Royal Assent. Well, whoopee. Mr. Chairperson: I wonder if the honourable member would allow me to interject just for a minute or two to indicate to the committee that we have been given leave to continue sitting after five o'clock during private members' .

So the House has given the committee leave to continue the sitting and deliberati on. You may continue, Mr. Lamoureux. Mr. Lamoureux: The issue that is before us, and I think it can be put quite simply, is the Minister of Health (Mr. Stef anson) this afternoon has recognized that there is no need to have this legislation implemented today. He has recognized that, Mr. Chairperson, because he has said in a motion that it will be whenever the government wants to pass the Royal Assent. Well, we think that is a positive. That is a step forwa rd.

It shows that the government was, at the very least, listening to some of the presentations. The Minister of Health has been around for a number of years. I look to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) as the NDP House leader, other members who have been here for a good number of years. We all know the rules and how this procedure takes place, how quickly legislation could pass. If we wanted to, this could become law within I 0 minutes. We all know that. If the political will was there to make it law, it could pass within 10 minutes. *

(1650) An Honourable Member: That is pretty fast. Mr. Lamoureux: That is pretty fast, as one member says. You are right. It is fast. Now if the government has recognized that there is merit to what is being said this afternoon and earl ier this morning that we do not have to make this law today, well, you know, I would look to the Minister of Health and the government of the day and ask them to make it a full step as opposed to a half step. There really is no need for us to be having to deal with this today. In fact, Mr.

Chairperson, I would suggest to you that we do not even need to deal with any amendments today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this committee rising. We did not even have to get the leave in the Chamber in

May 19 , 19 99 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 order to get it to extend. There is absolutely no reason why today our paramedics and others, including all Manitobans, cannot feel that the provincial government was going to behave in a responsible fashion and do what it should be doing, and that is going out and getting feedback on this legislation. There is a responsibility of this government-[ interjection] You know, someone says meanwhile, Mr. Chairperson, that they can strike. I think we have to listen. We had to listen very closely to what was being said at the committee stage.

There is no sense of urge ncy. We got the letter. You know, there are three letters that have come to surface. It was interesting when the Leader of the Liberal Party was making presentation. I thought maybe a few members were trying to possibly plant some traps, and the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) was one of them, making reference to the three letters : Has the Leader of the Liberal Party read the three letters? Well, I should let the Minister of Health know that that third letter I got from having to reach across the table.

That letter was not given to me, so I did not even get it until we were actually in the committee room. Someone actually referred to someone else, and I said: what is that? That is when I found out about that third letter. I think we have to maybe slow things down a little bit here, that maybe it is not as urgent as people try to say that it is that we pass this legislation. I think it is a cop-out, Mr.

Chair person, if the government is tr ying to say that we are thinking of the safety of Winnipeggers, we are thinking of the safety of Manitobans, and that is the reason why we have to pass that legislation today, or why we need to be given that Royal Assent hammer. I think it is a cop out. What is the government trying to imply? That the paramedics are not going to do what is right for Manitobans? I would suggest to you that we have to treat our health care professionals with more respect and treat them in a more honourable fashion, Mr. Chairperson.

I think that we have to give the benefit of the doubt in this parti cular case, I would argue, given what presentations that we have had, that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to our paramedics. They have given ample examples. They have given ample evidenc

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-5-la2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 5th hansardpdf la2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ac6be7c46bfe68371f0185387e309ed7905db8d1

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