Home Care Services
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, as the MLA for Turtle Mountain, I have expressed pleasure in standing and addressing the House in the past. Unfortunately, today, I do not feel as much pleasure. Growing up, it was always engrained in me that the truth--that there are two sides to every story; however, when I look around myself and my colleagues today I see a different scenario.
Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union voted to strike without any consultation with the employer and that is not fair. Quite frankly, without negotiations, how can the union even call a strike? This is most unfair now because those whom the unions apparently care so much about are being held hostage to the actions of their irresponsible union.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. We are now at Members’ Statements in Routine Proceedings and all members deserve respect and courtesy.
Mr. Tweed: Madam Speaker, I am receiving many phone calls from the rural home care workers who are upset. They tell me that they are being told by their unions and the NDP that they have to go on strike, that they have no choice, that they are being threatened by unions and other--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Tweed: So much for democracy, but I want to impress upon this House that home care workers in my constituency have as their primary concern the people that they work for--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Tweed: Madam Speaker, would it be fair if I started again?
I do want to impress upon the House that home care workers in my constituency have as their primary concern the people that they work for and with, and that, Madam Speaker, I assure you, is the correct perspective. It is high time that the unions realize that it is being extremely irresponsible by voting to strike without first consulting the employer.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Turtle Mountain, with 10 seconds to quickly complete his remarks.
Mr. Tweed: If the union cares so much about the people they serve, then how can they leave them in the lurch with this undemocratic strike. Meet with the employer and then discuss a strike vote.
This is hypocrisy at its worst, Madam Speaker. Manitobans are not being told this side of the story and for that reason I state these concerns so that they are recorded in the minutes of this House.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on home care.
Today we witnessed government's attempt to plan and privatize home care services against the interests of the patients. Home care patients do not support the privatization move. Home care workers do not support privatization of home care. This government is forcing the home care workers to display their opposition by going on a strike.
This Filmon government disregards the rights and needs of the patients. They disregard the rights and needs of the disabled people. They pay no attention to the interests of the public. This arrogance of this government is leading to a systematic destruction of the home care system and generally of our health care system.
This Filmon government refuses to hold province-wide hearings regarding the future of home care, more likely than not because they are afraid of what they would hear. While making money is the engine that drives our economy, there are certain circumstances where it becomes morally objectionable. When it is done on the backs of the sick and the poor, then it is no longer acceptable. Those who run this government avoid consultation systematically because they know what they would like to hear. They just cut government services, including home care, on the verge of destroying health care in this province. Thank you.
Winnipeg AAA Bantam Monarchs Hockey Team
Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Madam Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House--
An Honourable Member: Speak up a little bit.
Mr. Radcliffe: Having had trouble hearing there, the honourable members on the other side, I would like to draw the attention of this House to a significant achievement of the Winnipeg AAA Bantam Monarchs hockey team.
Last week, in Lethbridge, Madam Speaker, this team represented Manitoba in an exemplary fashion, winning the bronze medal in the Western Canadian Bantam Championship. The players on the team come from throughout southwest Winnipeg, including my own constituency of River Heights.
The Bantam Monarchs finished second in the regular-league play in the city and won the right to represent Winnipeg in the provincial bantam championship by winning the city’s championship playoff series.
The Bantam Monarchs, Madam Speaker, won the provincial championships in Brandon, setting the stage for the team’s strong effort in Lethbridge, where they represented Manitoba so proudly. The goaltender for the Bantam Monarchs, Ryan Olenick was named the all-star goalie for the Western Canadian Bantam Championship tournament.
I would ask all members of the Legislature to join me today in extending our congratulations to Ryan and the Winnipeg AAA Bantam Monarchs hockey club on a very successful season. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
* (1430)
Home Care Services
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the member for Turtle Mountain’s (Mr. Tweed) political statement.
The member for Turtle Mountain should be fully aware of history before he starts to talk in terms of making a statement that he put on the record. Absolutely amazing, Madam Speaker, he has taken the same line of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and to a certain degree that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has somewhat evaded, and that is to pass the blame, to blame someone else. This government has to take the responsibility for the actions that it is putting on the clients in the province of Manitoba.
I spoke to a client by the name of Ollie Maksymowicz earlier today. This is a client who said, look, We Care came buzzing at her door earlier today, and she refused to have We Care ultimately because she believed that the government services of home care services is a far better, superior, quality of home care services. So, on principle, Madam Speaker, she realizes that it is in her long-term best interest that this not be privatized for profit.
The member for Turtle Mountain and other Conservative members have to open their eyes, start consulting with some of these clients. This should have been taking place prior to a decision being made. This government did not consult, Madam Speaker, with anyone regarding home care services and the changes that they were moving into. This government should have been doing the consulting. We suggest that this government should in fact put a one-year moratorium, go out and do their homework, do the consulting, then come back. This government did not consult.
Someone in the government members says, we did. Well, Madam Speaker, they did not do any of the consulting because I have not found one individual that told me that this government has consulted them.
Madam Speaker, I trust I will get another opportunity to speak during an emergency debate. Thank you.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to respond to the member for Turtle Mountain’s (Mr. Tweed) comments in his member’s statement earlier. It is unconscionable, absolutely unconscionable that the member for Turtle Mountain and, by extension, the entire government caucus, says that home care workers do not care about their clients. That is unconscionable. The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) when he has deigned to stand in this House and now the back-bench members of this caucus, the government caucus, are attributing the worst possible kinds of ideas to home care workers, 3,000 of them in this province who care desperately for their clients, who have worked for years for the same clients.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), Madam Speaker, once again is making comments across the way, talking to our member about being honest. Apart from the irony of that coming from the Premier, I would like to ask that you ask him to withdraw those unparliamentary comments.
Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker. Just a few moments ago the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and a number of his colleagues were sitting in their seats yelling and screaming almost at the top of their lungs at the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). When some comments are returned during the statement by the member for Wellington, he pops up on his feet because he is concerned. When was he concerned when the member for Turtle Mountain was up there and when he was yelling and screaming from his seat?
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I did not hear the comments uttered by the honourable First Minister. I will take the matter under advisement and, if necessary, report back to the House.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington has one minute, five seconds remaining.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to also take exception to the comments made by the member for Turtle Mountain and also wish that he would share with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) the reality about the democratic process of membership in a union and the process that is undertaken. It was not the union bosses who voted to strike. It was the home care workers who were pushed to the wall by this government’s lack of consultation. Those home care workers voted overwhelmingly that in order for them to protect their client’s well-being, their client’s best interests and the best home care system in the entire North American continent, they had no other option but than to go on strike. For the member for Turtle Mountain and the Premier and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour to say that it was the union bosses is a total disregard for the whole free collective bargaining process and no wonder this government is in such trouble with its own workers.
MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Home Care Workers’ Dispute
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside under Rule 27.(1) to discuss the home care workers’ dispute.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Prior to acknowledging the motion moved by the honourable member for Kildonan, I regrettably neglected to identify Grievances on the Order Paper.
Before recognizing the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), I believe I should remind all members that under our subrule 31.(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.
As stated in Beauchesne’s Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not 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 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, I rise today to urge this Assembly do something that has not been done during the whole course of this debate, ever since the government secretly tried to put through a plan to privatize home care, and allow the public, allow the elected representatives of the province of Manitoba to discuss the issues and the ramifications of the government’s plan to privatize.
As we speak in this Chamber, this government is sending out clerks and other clerical people from the Department of Health to go out and visit home care patients--as we speak, Madam Speaker. They are doing that because their friends in the private sector, the ones that they are going to rely on to privatize home care do not have the capacity or the ability to deal with home care in the city of Winnipeg.
As we speak, the government plays games in the negotiation process. They say a 60-day moratorium on the strike. What is a 60-day moratorium? They are going to hold off tenders for 60 days, and then 60 days later they are going to give tenders out. What satisfaction is that? That amounts to nothing. That amounts to absolutely nothing.
The major issue at stake here is the privatization of a service that is recognized as the best in North America. What is at stake here are clients who unanimously deplore the government’s plans to privatize and workers who deplore the government’s plans to privatize and every single study and every single expert in the province of Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, we require an opportunity to debate in this Chamber the ramifications of what the government is doing, because as we speak the government is putting in place a so-called contingency plan in order to deal with this issue. Perhaps if members could hear arguments rather than simply the dictates I presume of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) who have said what they are going to do in home care, if they could hear arguments from members on this side of the House as to why privatization is not in the best interests of Manitoba, if they for once could open their ears and not just their mouths to spew forth the rhetoric that they do in this Chamber, if they had an opportunity to listen to what the arguments are against their move to privatize, perhaps the government could stop this entire process in its tracks, and we would be able to stop the potential difficulties that could occur as a result of this dispute.
Madam Speaker, I am to speak to the urgency of this debate. As we speak, the home care clients are having sent to them clerical people from the Department of Health trying to do home care, and why do we have that? We have that because the government is refusing to budge on the fundamental issue of privatization
.
* (1440)
Even though the Estimates are starting shortly in this Chamber, that affords us an opportunity to review questions on a line-by-line. The Home Care line is not until much further down in the process. We require an opportunity to debate the issue of privatization right now, because as we speak the government is playing games with offers, playing a public relations game, trying to blame the unions, trying to blame the workers, trying to blame everybody, but where in fact the blame lies is with themselves and their inability to listen to reason, to listen to logic, to listen to policy.
If there is not an issue that requires debate in this Chamber, I dare say there is no single issue in the province of Manitoba requiring a debate more urgently and more at question than the whole issue and the whole plan of this government to privatize home care. With their lack of study, with their lack of information, there is no issue in this province that requires a more urgent discussion, an urgent debate, as we face a labour dispute that has been brought on by this government and this government’s inability to listen.
If we had a debate, perhaps the members could stand up and for once perhaps we might hear even a reason as to why they are privatizing, perhaps one reason, and maybe if we had a debate they could even come up with two reasons but, I dare say, the reason members opposed the debate and the reason that they have not been able to give us any reasons for the privatization of home care is that they do not have any. They do not have any reasons for privatization other than their own ideological bend and their own recommendations and reports of their friends in the private sector who have said, privatize, give us the profit, we will take the money, Madam Speaker, and their friend Connie Curran, who recommended privatization.
So I suggest and I urge, given the seriousness of the labour situation facing us, given the fact that the government has chosen to play games in the negotiation process by putting up token gestures, we in this Chamber, in fact, it is our duty to debate this issue. It is our duty to discuss the policy ramifications. It is our duty to look at this issue so that we can resolve this issue as soon as possible. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members that the motion just currently moved is not identical in wording to the MUPI that was submitted to my office earlier this morning. On February 17, 1992, the Speaker ruled that the MUPI was out of order because the original text was not identically the same as the motion that was served as notice earlier in the day.
Is there leave to permit the honourable member for Kildonan to revert or rescind the motion he proposed and resubmit the motion the same as notice was served on this morning?
[interjection] Order, please. I have asked the House if there is leave.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would then move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that under Rule 31.(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the strike by home care service workers.
Madam Speaker: The motion indeed is in order and, before recognizing the honourable member for Inkster, I would remind all members that under subrule 31.(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As stated in Beauchesne’s Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of their motion.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would like to demonstrate to the House that in fact this is an urgent matter that does warrant the debate of this Chamber. In fact, we would like and encourage all members to be able to participate in an active debate to talk about the whole issue of privatization of health care. Why? Primarily because what we have to start looking at is the health and well-being of the clients of the province of Manitoba.
This is something that we believe that the government is not doing, and we want to hear from the government in terms of what they believe is in the best interests of the clients. We heard earlier from the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). What I want to hear from is more of the cabinet ministers. I want to hear from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in terms of what he believes is important in terms of home care services. We have to be able to understand the fear that is out there, that is in the minds of the many home care clients that are scattered throughout the province of Manitoba. I make reference to this Ollie Maksymowicz, an individual elderly lady that I talked to earlier today and I made reference to it in a nonpolitical statement. The fear that she has is that if the government moves towards the privatization for profit of home care services, then at the end of the day she is going to see the quality of care being downgraded, and that is a legitimate concern.
There are many other arguments, Madam Speaker. I could talk, for example, about how the privatization of home care services is going to lead to the establishment of a two-tier system, one that will be more enhanced and in a better position for those that have more of the economic means as opposed to those who do not have the same sort of economic resources. We have clients scattered throughout the province that rely on home care services. We have an individual like I just finished citing who wants to be able to have those home care services delivered to her but is not prepared to cross the picket line because what she believes is fundamentally that this is the government that is causing the problem.
We have a responsibility in opposition to clearly demonstrate that it is this government that is causing the problem and the only way that we can do that and, hopefully, be successful is if we allow all members of this Chamber to let Manitobans know, through this Chamber and the constituents that we represent, what our thoughts and our opinions are. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) will have to excuse me if I am somewhat emotional on this issue. It is an important issue to all Manitobans, and I will speak as loud as I so choose.
Madam Speaker, I believe ultimately that if there is any reason to believe whatsoever by allowing this debate to occur that we can prevent the strike from continuing, that alone is worth allowing this debate to proceed. The costs that are being incurred by allowing the strike, if you like, to continue on--you have individuals going into institutions, whether hospitals, personal care homes; you are having a growing reliance on members of the family and other nonprofit organizations; you are putting into jeopardy the care that is being provided--ultimately this is something that does warrant the attention of an emergency debate. I would ask that you give consideration or possibly even canvass the House to see if there is the support to allow this debate to go on. Ultimately, yes, Health Estimates does follow this, but it does not allow the opportunity for all members to be able to participate in that debate and we want to talk about the home care services. Home care services is not the first thing up on the agenda. The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) know about that, so let us stand up for the clients in the province of Manitoba. Let us do what is right. Let us allow this emergency debate to occur. Thank you very much.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): It is ironic that earlier today we had admonitions from members of the government about democratic process, which, I think, shows their fundamental disdain for just the common sense and intelligence of many home care workers who have made a very difficult decision, a decision that has been forced upon them by the actions of this government. But I say that it is ironic that the government talks about democratic process, because when it comes to home care, never once have they ever campaigned on privatizing home care. Never once in this House have they debated privatizing home care. Never once have they submitted it to a vote of this Legislature.
That is not democracy. They have no right to lecture home care workers or anybody in this province about democracy. Madam Speaker, that is why we want to see an emergency debate today in this Legislature on home care. As we speak, I believe that there are people at risk. This government, driven by the agenda, the private agendas of private home care companies and the private agenda of this minister, is bringing us to the brink--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1450)
Points of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Firstly, Madam Speaker, your admonition at the start of the member for Kildonan’s (Mr. Chomiak) address to the matter of urgency, your admonition to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) with respect to urgency--and somewhere in there, I suppose, there might have been something about urgency--but in the address for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) not yet has he mentioned any urgency at all, and he has been speaking for two or three minutes.
So, Madam Speaker, I ask you to call him to order. I have been very patient. I listened to the member for Kildonan not talk about urgency; I listened to the member for Inkster not talk about urgency--save one or two comments--when your admonition clearly said that it is urgency that is the matter of debate.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson just imputed motives, serious motives to the Minister of Health. I think that is highly inappropriate, and the member ought to withdraw that immediately, for clearly that is beyond the rules.
Mr. Ashton: I will just ask for some advice, Madam Speaker, as I believe, the minister raised two separate points of order, and I would like to comment on both. I would just like to ask for your advice on how we should proceed in dealing with those two separate points of order.
Madam Speaker: Indeed, the government House leader did raise two distinctly separate points of order. I will deal with the first point of order, the matter of urgency, first.
The honourable member for Thompson, on the first point of order.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I believe that, if the government House leader would have listened to my comments, I made reference to the fact that people are at risk currently, and I was just addressing the very degree of urgency that is required for a matter of this importance to be discussed by the Legislature as our rules and our traditions in this House. Whenever we get a matter of such importance, we often debate it. I also have some comments on the second point of order, too. I do not know if I should make those here.
Madam Speaker: I indicated to the member for Thompson earlier, I will deal with them as two explicitly separate points of order.
On the government House leader’s point of order, indeed, the government House leader had a point of order, and I explicitly referred to the urgency of debate. Beauchesne’s Citation 390 is very clear: “‘Urgency’ within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means ‘urgency of debate’, when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.”
The honourable member for Thompson, on the second point of order.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on the subsequent point of order, my comments were based directly on a sworn statement that I raised earlier in Question Period which point very clearly to the fact that as early as 1989 the Minister of Health was working with We Care and one Bev McMaster towards the privatization of our home care system, and indeed that was an agenda and it was a private agenda. It was never once revealed to the public of Manitoba--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. My understanding of the government’s point of order was that the honourable member for Thompson had imputed motives of the honourable Minister of Health. Now, I have not ruled on that point of order. Does the honourable member for Thompson wish to further comment on the point of order?
Mr. Ashton: Yes, Madam Speaker, I do.
Madam Speaker: Very quickly.
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I mention this because I did indeed and I have said earlier and I will say again that the minister had a private agenda related to home care that was one of privatizing home care. Indeed it was revealed as early as 1989 in conjunction with We Care. That is a statement of fact; it is not impugning motives. The fact is this Minister of Health has always been pushing for the privatization of health care. I would say that the reference to a private agenda is the fact that it was not made public in any election by the Minister of Health or the Premier, so in fact a private agenda is not only not impugning motives, it is a statement of fact and it is a very accurate description of what occurred.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the second point of order, I will take it under advisement. I will indeed check Hansard and review all comments made on the point of order and report back to the House if necessary.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, who has three minutes, twenty seconds remaining.
Mr. Ashton: I want to once again, for the benefit of the government House leader and others, point to the very urgency of this matter. As we speak, I believe that the health of home care clients in this province is being placed at risk by a government that is currently now seeking individuals with clerical experience to take care of home care clients.
Madam Speaker, you referenced Beauchesne 390. We have no other opportunity to debate home care, the urgent situation. The minister knows, the government House leader knows that we do not even reach the line in Health Estimates on home care--it could be some weeks if not months before we reach that line. We have people at risk currently. We have no other opportunity to try and bring this government to its senses before something very serious happens in this province.
I am raising this today as a member of this Legislature because I am concerned on behalf of my constituents and many other Manitobans that this government is pushing ahead with its private agenda at the expense of home care clients in this province. I am extremely concerned that if we do not have any kind of debate it may be a fait accompli, and something serious will happen.
I ask only one thing of this government now. I would like to see them drop the privatization of home care, but I ask them only to do one thing today. At least give us, the members of the Legislature, the opportunity to speak out on behalf of the thousands and hundreds of thousands of Manitobans who oppose what they are doing on home care. If you are so sure of what you are doing, why are you not going to agree to a debate on this matter, I ask the government House leader. An emergency debate is two hours of the time of this Legislature. Is it not two hours that would be well invested to try and get some sense of what this government is doing?
Madam Speaker, I believe we have had precedents in this House where previous speakers have given the uniqueness of this occasion, similar occasions of the past, we have canvassed the House on whether there should be an urgent debate. Indeed, I would urge you as Speaker and I would urge the government to allow us one thing today on the day that I believe is a very serious day for Manitoba. It is a very unfortunate day. At least allow the elected members of the Legislature who represent one million Manitobans one thing, and that is to debate the very serious concerns that are being expressed about the private agenda of this government. That is why I would urge you to allow us to have the House decide on whether there should be a debate on this very urgent matter. Thank you.
* (1500)
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I patiently listened to the member for Thompson, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) all relate their story with respect to this issue.
The fact of the matter is, though, that yesterday you ruled a matter of urgent public importance out of order for reasons that are no different today than they were yesterday. As a matter of fact, today it is even less urgent than it was yesterday, because this afternoon, depending upon the timing of your ruling, within five minutes we can be discussing this issue in the Estimates of the Department of Health.
While the member says, well, we cannot deal with it because it does not come up until later in the Estimates of the Department of Health, that is true. Home Care does not come up until later. But everything under the sun has always historically been discussed under Administration, which is the first item in the Estimates of the Department of Health.
As a matter of fact, the members opposite, in proposing this motion, are actually shortchanging themselves because, Madam Speaker, if we start within five minutes they will have two and a half hours to discuss Health as opposed to two hours in the House here. So they are going to get an extra half an hour by ignoring their own motion, and they will also get an opportunity not just to put their point of view on the record but to ask the Minister of Health questions. I mean, that is the whole portent of Estimates, to have that discussion.
I heard the member for Kildonan on a number of occasions say, we must have a discussion about this issue of home care, but in an emergency debate in the House there is no discussion. They put their point of view on the record, we put our point of view on the record, end of story. But, Madam Speaker, in the Estimates of the department there is an opportunity for discussion. There is an opportunity to ask questions. There is an opportunity to seek clarifications, all of which is more to their own advantage than the motion put forward by the member for Inkster. So on that alone, you should rule it out of order.
Madam Speaker: I thank all honourable members for their advice. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has moved a motion which reads that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the strike by home care service workers.
As members know, the Speaker’s role in a matter of urgent public importance is examining whether the requirements set out by this House’s rules and practices have been met. Firstly, I would advise that the required notice of 90 minutes was given.
The second requirement is, are there are no other opportunities for the matter to be debated. On this point, the Estimates order indicates that the Estimates for the Department of Health will commence today, so the member will have the opportunity to raise the issue in that form. Also, the honourable member on future days can use the vehicle of a member’s statement and grievance.
The third test is, will the public interest suffer if the matter is not debated today? Because the member has another opportunity to discuss the matter today, I would rule that the public interest will not suffer if the home care workers’ dispute is not debated in the form of a matter of urgent public importance.
There is no question the dispute is a serious matter; however, I must rule that the motion proposed by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) does not meet the procedural requirements of the rules and practices of this House.