MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Hospitals Emergency Departments Status

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I move that under Rule 27, the ordinary business of the House to be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to the health care system posed by this government's plans to limit emergency services in the city of Winnipeg community hospitals, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Mrs. Friesen).

Motion presented.

Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Kildonan, I believe I should remind all members that under our Rule 27.(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member of each of the other parties in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.

As stated in Beauchesne Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary business opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, with respect to the first threshold considering debate in this Chamber, I remind you of your ruling that you made recently in this House on Monday when you indicated that in fact, due to the fact that the Estimates have now been passed, due to the fact that there is no major bill dealing with health in this Chamber which would provide us an opportunity to debate this issue and due to the fact that the grievance procedure is not permissible to be used at this point in time, there are no other opportunities in order to debate this particular matter before the Chamber.

Secondly, regarding the public interest on the entire question of urgency, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that, as indicated earlier during the course of a strike by the emergency doctors, the urgency is one of life and limb. The urgency of the need for this debate in Manitoba is such that at this very moment officials have been advised that the emergency wards must be closed. A long weekend is coming up and the ministry has directed emergency wards to be closed. Therefore, this is an urgent matter of pressing concern requiring the public interest to be protected. In fact, as we speak, notice has been served upon these emergency wards to close and if this does not constitute urgency in the context of the public interest, I cannot think of another matter that would be of a more urgent nature.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, without getting the subject matter of the bill, I am sure that you will appreciate the very urgent nature of the fact that emergency services have been long considered by Manitobans available in the city of Winnipeg on a 24-hour basis, in fact, for decades. And with a ministerial fiat, with not even the signing of a document, these emergency services are immediately going to be curtailed.

Therefore, based on the fact that these services are going to be curtailed, based on the fact that we are heading into a long weekend when these services will be curtailed, based on the importance of these services, Madam Speaker, and based on the fact that we have no other opportunity to debate this issue because of the items that I cited earlier in this Chamber, I call upon you to rule in accordance and, following the precedent of your ruling earlier in this week, a ruling we supported, when you indicated to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that in fact there was need for a pressing debate under the circumstances of the doctors' strike. I indicate to you that circumstances are so similar insofar as the emergency wards that were closed during the strike will now be continued to be closed going into a long weekend in Manitoba and on a permanent basis, Madam Speaker, I urge you to accept this motion and allow us to debate this very pressing matter. Thank you.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the question that needs to be addressed, of course, is one of a question of urgency. The member for Kildonan makes the case against himself when he talks about the fact that the emergency wards have been closed for the last 30 days between the hours of 10 at night and eight o'clock in the morning. For 30 days, he has not raised a matter of urgent public importance. As a matter of fact, right now there is better service in the emergency wards than there has been for the last 30 days.

Madam Speaker, his earliest opportunity to deal with a question of urgent and public importance was 30 days ago when the emergency wards closed in the first place. During the last 30 days, as well, we have had certain emergency wards closed for an entire day in order to give staff more time off in order to recuperate from the workload that they have been under because of the reduced staffing.

But, Madam Speaker, today we have those doctors now back at work in all of those emergency wards. The sense for urgency has not been made, I submit, by the member for Kildonan. The fact of the matter is he could have raised it any time in the last 30 days and it would have been more appropriate than it is today. Those wards have been closed for the last 30 days. He did not raise it, nor did any other member of his party raise it, nor did any other member of this House, quite frankly, raise it, because the matter raised by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) on the 18th of September dealt with the doctor's strike. It did not deal with the question of limited hours of emergency room service.

So, Madam Speaker, he has not made a case for urgency, and it is somewhat hypocritical for him to come today to try and make a case for urgency when, in fact, for the last 30 days he could have done that, and it would have been more appropriate, not necessarily in order, but certainly more appropriate than it would have been today.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable members for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) should be debated today.

I did receive the notice required under our subrule 27.(1). According to our Rule 27 and Beauchesne's Citations 389 and 390, the two conditions required for a matter of urgent importance to proceed are: (a) The subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought on early enough; and (b) It must be shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.

With regard to the first condition, looking at the Order Paper, there are two items that indeed may deal with this issue, those being Bill 209, The Health Reform Accountability and Consequential Amendments Act, and Bill 206, The Public Health Amendment Act. We have not seen these printed bills so cannot judge how directly relevant they might be to this debate.

However, on the matter of the urgency of the matter, I realize the sensitivity of this issue, and it has been in the public realm for the past four weeks. There is no question it is a very serious issue that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) brings to this House, but I am not convinced by the arguments made here this morning that the public interest will suffer if the member's motion is not debated today. I am, therefore, ruling against debate proceeding.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I challenge the ruling of the Chair and request a recorded vote.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

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

Formal Vote

Mr. Martindale: I request a recorded vote, Madam Speaker.

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

The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Speaker be sustained.

* (1200)

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Radcliffe, Reimer, Stefanson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Nays

Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Lamoureux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 21.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and myself were both paired with the government.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.