Minister of Labour's Statements
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that under Rule 31.1, ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the recent statements made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Inkster, 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.
* (1430)
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, I heard you, Madam Speaker, distinctly read the motion of the member for Inkster which says, a matter of urgent public importance about recent statements by the Minister of Labour, period.
Madam Speaker, what statements? The Minister of Labour makes statements of all kinds. I would think that the motion itself is out of order based on the fact that it is not definitive, does not deal with any specific issue, and says only, certain statements by the Minister of Labour. It does not refer to anything specific and, quite frankly, it ought to be ruled out of order.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Maples, on the same point of order?
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Yes.
Madam Speaker: On the same point of order.
Mr. Kowalski: In regard to the government House leader speaking on this point of order, I believe that is what the five minutes are allocated for, and by standing up on a point of order he is subverting the process where the mover has five minutes to explain the urgency of the motion and explain the motion. So I believe it is inappropriate for the government House leader to be standing up on a point of order until the mover has a chance to explain the motion.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order.
My understanding is that the government House leader is questioning the validity of the motion in two respects. I believe the minister is perhaps confusing our rulings in terms of Oral Questions, which do prohibit raising questions, certainly, matters raised outside of the House. In fact, Beauchesne Citation 409 (10) does do that, Madam Speaker.
In terms of matters of urgent public importance, we have had a very broad application of definition to this matter, and I would remind the government House leader that essentially all the matter of urgent public importance does is put aside the normal business of the day to debate a certain matter. We are not dealing with a motion that is voted upon at the end of the day. It is not the situation we have currently under the new rules with Opposition Days.
I would therefore suggest that this particular wording is certainly no less vague than many of the wordings of similar resolutions in the past, and I would suggest that we do deal with it and deal with it as we normally do under the new rules, which is provide you with advice and you will then make a ruling which can no longer be challenged.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, he does not have a point of order with relation to his comments relating to the specific matter identified in the motion. The process is for each member to explain the urgency prior to the Speaker making a decision based on the motion and the relevant urgency of the matter.
Point of Order
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, on a new point of order.
In dealing with an issue before the House, particularly a substantive motion to set aside all of the business of the day in order to deal with a specific issue, the issue must be somewhat defined. The issue in the motion is not defined. The issue simply says certain statements of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). Now, if it had said related to the casino workers strike, which I assume is what it is about, then I would not have had objection, but the fact of the matter is it does not say that. It simply says certain statements of the Minister of Labour. Now the Minister of Labour might have said good morning to the security guard when he walked in the door. That is a statement of the Minister of Labour. Is that what we are going to debate? Let the motion be specific. If it is not specific or at least provide some general parameters around it, Madam Speaker, it is out of order.
Madam Speaker: On the new point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, indeed there is no point of order. There is nothing contained in our rules that states explicitly what must be cited in order for the matter of urgent public importance to be debated.
The issue is for the member moving the motion to indeed prove that it is a matter that merits setting aside the regular business of the day, and the two House leaders, in this instance to the member proposing the motion, have the same opportunity to present their case as to why or why not the motion should proceed.
Point of Order
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Maples, on a new point of order?
Mr. Kowalski: Madam Speaker, on a new point of order, my point of order is the use of points of order. Twice the government House leader stood up on the same point of order. After you gave a ruling, he used the vehicle of a point of order so--[interjection]
Yes, it is order, the order of debate. I am asking him to be called to order, not to use points of order repeatedly when he knows obviously there was already a ruling and he stood up for a second time.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order by the honourable member for The Maples, I have already ruled on both points of order raised by the government House leader and indicated that he did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, maybe I will attempt to enlighten the government House leader as to why it is that we felt that it was necessary from our side to suggest that the time be set aside today so that we can debate the remarks, statements made from the minister, somewhat surprised in the sense that the government House leader would not necessarily know what type of statements I am referring to, but I will elaborate on those so that he will be fully in tune with respect to it.
Madam Speaker, with respect to the urgency, two conditions in Beauchesne's: first, that the public interest would be best served by debating it today. The government is a major employer in the province of Manitoba, if not the largest employer in Manitoba, and the government has a responsibility in terms of negotiations and contracts and it also has responsibilities in terms of private sector negotiations when it comes to issues such as mediators, conciliators. It is absolutely critical and crucial that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) be perceived as being neutral with respect to these strikes.
Madam Speaker, ultimately one would argue that it is in the public's best interest to seek clarification from the Minister of Labour as to the comments that he has made over the last 24 hours. There is no ordinary opportunity which will allow this matter to be brought on early enough in the sense that what we are seeking is clarification. Even though there might be labour legislation, one could in fact be ruled as being irrelevant to the specific bill because you have to be talking about the principle of the bill in itself.
What we want to talk about or we want to hear from the Minister of Labour is the Minister of Labour's response to concerns that were brought first yesterday and then it was reaffirmed through the media outlets, and therefore, this being our first real opportunity to try to seek that clarification from the minister responsible. Madam Speaker, there were a couple of documents that were tabled yesterday and in those documents--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster, he is not to speak to the issue that he wishes raised as a MUPI but to the reason for the urgency of debate.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the reason for the urgency of the debate, as what the government House leader was requesting, was namely the recent statements made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). The government House leader needs to know those statements and those statements are documents that were tabled yesterday where, in essence, we had one individual who indicated and signed a letter indicating that the minister had said, every day you are in front of my house, I am adding seven days to your strike. Then there was a conversation that took place between the minister and the workers, thereby, in the eyes of many, putting the Minister of Labour in a position in which he might have compromised himself as the Minister of Labour who is responsible for administering The Labour Relations Act which would include the appointment of a mediator. That is the reason why we need to have clarification on those statements so that in fact Manitobans will be in a better position to be able to determine whether or not the minister is in a conflict, because if he is in a conflict, then there is a responsibility of the minister to step down and that is the urgency--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. One more time. The honourable member has approximately 45 seconds remaining, but I would remind the honourable member once again that you should be speaking to the urgency, not the principle of the issue you wish to have debated.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, many Manitobans would believe that this government is driven philosophically in order to resolve this particular strike, and the urgency is that there are future negotiations, ongoing negotiations with many other unions that are out there. It is absolutely critical and essential that the Minister of Labour be perceived as being neutral, that he cannot be taking sides. The statements that he made over the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that he is or at least has given the impression or the perception that he has taken sides. That is why we want the debate so that the Minister of Labour, and others, can clarify exactly what the government's actual intentions are. Thank you.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I wish to add a few comments to this. I appreciate your ruling. I think it was certainly reflective of the fact of the types of matters we do have here, although I think the government House leader, notwithstanding the ruling that this is in order, does have a point in a sense that I do believe there was omission.
What we are clearly talking about are statements made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) outside of this House and, in fact, I would suggest inside this House, that suggest that the Minister of Labour has a clear bias. It is something we have raised. I would submit to you that it is urgent in the sense that every day that we have the Minister of Labour making these kinds of statements, these biased statements, we are not only extending work stoppages in this province--and particularly the casino strike which is in excess of 90 days now--we are not only surpassing the record of days lost, but we are affecting everyone in this province. We are affecting the economic fabric of this province and the social fabric. There is no other mechanism, I think, to provide the kind of comment that we certainly feel should be made on this particular issue.
I found it interesting earlier today that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) seems to see no difficulty and tried to use an example from the 1980s, which had very little relevance to this, to suggest that it is okay to have bias.
I would submit that we need to have this debate because it is not acceptable for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) in this province to not only be acting supposedly as the person who is in charge of such services as conciliation and mediation, but on the other hand, doing various things, as he did in the home care strike and he has in this particular case in the casino strike, commenting on the strike itself. I think that is absolutely inappropriate, in effect negotiating for the government, which is absolutely inappropriate for someone who at the same time is responsible for conciliation and mediation, and on top of that, giving us Clint Eastwood-type statements, go ahead, make my day, when people picket--as is their legal right; I do not necessarily agree with it--at his home, and we are stuck with this situation indeed where it is urgent. This province is seeing the social and economic fabric that binds us together destroyed by the personal agendas of ministers and in this case the Minister of Labour.
Madam Speaker, if we were in Estimates we could deal with this matter more directly. We cannot. There is no bill that deals with the bias or lack thereof of ministers. The only mechanism available to us, I would suggest, is the matter of urgent public importance.
* (1440)
I want to stress again to the government that it is absolutely unacceptable to see personal agendas come ahead of the public good of Manitoba The public good demands that we resolve disputes such as the casino dispute. It demands that we have a Minister of Labour who is not negotiating for the government or acting out on some personal agenda involving individuals in any party, whether it be a president of a union or individual picketers.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Labour in this province should be absolutely neutral in terms of labour disputes. That has been the practice in this province, and if the government does not see anything wrong with having that bias expressed, this Clint Eastwood style of labour relations, let us debate it in this House. Let us make sure that all Manitobans have a say, because I know that the people of Manitoba want this government to stop putting its personal and political agendas at the front and put the public good of this province--which requires a nonbiased Minister of Labour that can sit down and have the trust and credibility of all sides in the labour dispute, whether it be the casino workers, whether it be the steelworkers in Thompson, in my own community, who have already expressed their own distrust of the Minister of Labour based on comments that he has made to them.
Madam Speaker, we need an unbiased Minister of Labour that can deal with disputes in this province. That is something we do not have. That is why we support this motion and we want the debate and would urge you to approve it.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, if I knew what the motion was, I would speak to the urgency of the debate with respect to the motion. But because the motion does not define anything, and it does not speak about the bias of the minister and does not speak about statements made with regard to the casino workers strike, and it does not speak to anything else--it simply says, certain statements by the minister--I cannot see any reason for urgency or for debate or the fact that we should break down the business of the House today to talk about whether the minister said good morning to the security guard, or whether he said good morning to his secretary, or whether he said when he went for lunch that, I will have a turkey sandwich on brown, but those are all statements by the Minister of Labour.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the government House leader stood up on two occasions to talk about his point of order in terms of, from his perspective, there was not enough detailed information that was provided. Then when he stands up to talk about the urgency of the debate, had he been listening not only to me but to the other member, he would have found that what he is currently talking about, which is irrelevant in essence to the urgency factor, he would know what it is that we are actually attempting to debate.
I am not convinced that he knows what it is that we are attempting to debate today.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster clearly does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, again, we are talking about urgency of debate and urgency of debate based on the motion submitted by the member for Inkster. That is what I am talking about, and that motion, as I tried to explain earlier, is so general that it does not talk about anything in particular, so we do not know what we are supposed to be debating. Now we have a perception by the member for Inkster about what he thinks his motion means, and we have a perception by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) about what he thinks the motion means, but the fact of the matter is that the motion does not say anything, and that I hardly see would qualify as a question of urgency at all.
If the perceptions of the member for Thompson or the member for Inkster are correct and that is what he really means and should have said in his motion in the first place, if he wanted to talk about the bias or alleged bias of the Minister of Labour, then he should have said that in his motion, but he did not. If he wants to talk about issues related to certain statements made about the casino workers strike, then he should have said that in his motion, but he did not. His motion does not say anything. There is no urgency with respect to that motion at all. Now, again it is the question of whether certain statements made or alleged to be made by a member in this House, outside of the House particularly, are biased or not. That is in the eye of the beholder. I do not happen to think so, but perhaps other members do. That is their privilege. They can think whatever they wish.
While not directly relevant but certainly relevant to the procedures of our Chamber, Beauchesne Citation 409, particularly sub (10) “A question ought not to refer to a statement made outside the House by a Minister.” Now, I agree that deals with Question Period, but while it deals with Question Period it also refers to procedures in this House, so that if a minister or anyone else makes a statement outside the House, the question ought not to be brought back into the House, either an oral statement or a statement written or quoted in a particular newspaper. As well, the fact that Beauchesne Citation--oh, I lost my spot--481, sub (f), refers to the question of--Sorry, Madam Speaker, I lost my spot--but refers directly to personal attacks or personal references to a particular individual. Again, clearly not in order, should not be--yes, 481(f) “make a personal charge against a Member.” That is something else that ought not to be permitted in this House.
But certainly on the basis of relevancy based on the motion the member brought--and he can say what he wants in debate, the motion is the motion that is voted on. We are not voting on what he said after the motion, either whether he was speaking to urgency or not, we are simply speaking to the question of the motion, and there is no urgency, quite frankly, to speak about that particular motion because the motion refers to gobbledegook.