Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would take this opportunity to move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that, under Rule 31.(1), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the aftermath of the 1997 flood and the plight of Manitobans recovering from the flood in the Red River Valley.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Inkster, I would remind all honourable members that under our rule, subrule 31.(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from each of the other parties in the House are allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating this matter immediately.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I do want to stress the urgency of this particular motion in the sense that we are going to be sitting for approximately two weeks. That time is going to deal with the throne, and no doubt a number of members will take issue with the flood in their throne speech remarks.
What it is that I am suggesting and arguing and hoping to articulate in a few minutes is the importance of this issue in being addressed today by, in particular, some key members of the Chamber, the minister responsible for EMO, for example, to have concerns raised from the critic of the official opposition to other individuals that want to be able to raise issues because, in fact, we are only going to be sitting for the next two weeks, and we are at a time in which there is a great deal of stress out there.
We saw the urgency when we had the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) not only take one but two questions today. We saw the urgency with the last member from the government side that gave the political statement about the flood in talking about the flood. It is on the top of the minds of many Manitobans today because we are at a time of the year in which most would have anticipated that the ramifications of the flood and the tragedies caused from the flood would be at least in most part addressed. They are not because there have been a number of things that have not occurred, and we have talked and raised some of those issues today when I talked about the mould and mildew to the whole question of trying to get assurances from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on comments that he has made.
I believe that before Christmas what we want to be able to do is to assure the victims of the flood in the best way that we can, assure them that government is doing what it can. That is why in the wording of this particular motion it was not an attempt to take a cheap shot at the government or in terms of criticizing the government. What we are looking for is a very sincere debate from the government and from all members of this Chamber as to what some of the problems are today and how we can collectively--as we attempted to do when the flood came to Manitoba, where we all worked together. We saw parties of all stripes working together. Well, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that having this sort of a debate is, in fact, in order today, given the impact that the flood has had and the consequences that thousands of Manitobans are still suffering today as a result.
By allowing a two-hour debate, Madam Speaker, what we will then allow for is more debate on the throne speech, on the many other aspects which the government is wanting to do, because the throne speech is, in fact, the only other debate that we are really going to be having before we adjourn, so it would seem to me to be an appropriate time to have this particular debate. I appeal to both the government House leader and the official opposition House leader to agree with me and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) as to the need to have this debate today. I believe all members of the Chamber are, in fact, in favour of trying to do what they can in contributing to a positive discussion as to what should be happening.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the attention of the House.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the rule respecting this particular legislative procedure is predicated on a couple of matters. One of those matters is that it needs to be shown that there is no other appropriate opportunity for a debate of the kind envisioned by the honourable member for Inkster and then the whole question of urgency. I certainly would not be arguing any question about relevancy because the throne speech itself delivered yesterday by the Lieutenant Governor dealt at length with issues related to the flood of the century, so there is no argument in that respect.
Madam Speaker, it is rare, indeed, during a Throne Speech Debate that the issue of relevancy comes up. In fact, I do not know of a time when anyone has ever argued that someone was being irrelevant or any Speaker has ever ruled that relevancy was an issue. In any event, as I said, the flood of the century is referred to at length in the throne speech itself.
The honourable member knows also that Question Period is available to members of the opposition, as we saw today, and there is ample opportunity in Question Period and in the Throne Speech Debate as it unfolds to deal with the issues that are of concern to the honourable member for Inkster and, indeed, of concern to all of us.
So I take no issue whatever, Madam Speaker, with what it is the honourable member is trying to achieve, and I suggest that that end can be achieved through the rules that we have respecting the Speech from the Throne and Question Period and the procedures that we have available to us in this House.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for bringing this matter before the House. I want to indicate that we are fully in support of this particular matter of urgent public importance, and I want to note for the record that we actually called on the government to recall the Legislature earlier than was actually the case. This was basically the preagreed return date, because we felt there was nothing more important, nothing more vital than dealing with the many outstanding concerns that are still being expressed and are being shown most clearly to the current round of public hearings, the commissions holding them in the flood-affected communities. We felt that we, as Manitoba legislators, should be doing what we did during the flood, and that is putting top priority on dealing with those concerns.
* (1110)
I want to stress that even today in Question Period we saw how important it is to have this kind of debate when we saw the Premier (Mr. Filmon) six times refuse to withdraw comments that have caused a great deal of concern and, I dare say, anguish with many flood victims.
All of us in this House, I know, know people affected by the flood. My brother and sister-in-law were evacuated. They were fortunate not to face damage. But you know, Madam Speaker, I want to give you their example as to why we need to debate this and why we need to get the Premier to withdraw those comments. They moved into an area. They actually moved in just before the flood, so I know currently what the sense was of people moving in the area. They did all their homework. They checked what had been done, because this was an area of the city that was affected by the 1950 flood. They checked the work that had been done in that area. They were told that the current situation following the floodway would protect that area and, yet, they still found, through the unusual circumstances this year, that they had to be evacuated and that their property was at risk. That is the story of many Manitobans. That is the story of many people who, yes, have chosen to live in an area in many cases for decades or even recently.
You know, many of them took every reasonable precaution. Many people in rural areas have taken their own initiative. I heard stories from people I have talked to, and I attended the rally held by flood victims who talked about how they built to the 1950 level. They built to the 100-year level, to the 200-year, 300-year level, and it still was not good enough, out of their own pockets. That is why we need the Premier, I believe, as part of the healing process, because recognizing the fact that many flood victims still are concerned about their situation, part of the healing process should be for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to withdraw those comments, because he said that people that choose to live on a flood plain should accept some responsibility. He does not understand--[interjection]
An Honourable Member: That is not what he said.
Mr. Ashton: The Conservative member across the ways says, that is not what he said. It is in the newspapers. He repeated it again today. He is trying to put a spin on it as he always does--but that choose to live in a flood plain.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, this whole city is on a flood plain. Most of southern Manitoba is on a flood plain. I actually do not live on a flood plain; I live in Thompson. But, you know, you could say the same thing, that I choose to live in an area that is affected by forest fires. Let us face it, in this province, between floods and forest fires, there are not too many areas that are immune to those kinds of natural disasters. That is why we need this debate. We need to educate the Premier (Mr. Filmon). We need it now. We cannot go into the normal routine as if nothing happened by having the Throne Speech Debate. We need the Premier to understand the hurt that his comments have caused.
I want to say, just to finish off, I will tell you somebody that reflected this. I was travelling back to Thompson. There was somebody from Newfoundland who read the Premier's comments, and I want to be a little bit more diplomatic than what he said. He turned to me, did not know who I was, obviously, and he pointed to the Premier's statements. He says, I cannot stand this guy; I do not believe what he said. I said, how insensitive. He said, I am from Newfoundland. I believe that the government should not be blaming the victims but should be dealing with them in an open and honest and fair way. That is what Manitobans did. That is what Manitobans want from their government and they want from their Premier.
So, Madam Speaker, if we need an emergency debate to get the Premier to finally, despite six chances earlier in Question Period, put the record straight and deal with the hurt and the anguish of flood victims who feel that he does not care and that he is out of touch, let us do it. Let us have the emergency debate. Manitobans want it.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I thank all honourable members for their advice on whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) should be debated today. The notice required under Rule 31.(1) was indeed provided. According to Rule 31 and Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390, there are two tests for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed. One is that the subject matter is so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought out early enough; and two, it has been shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.
Precedent from past rulings of Manitoba Speakers indicates that the scope of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, which is scheduled to begin today, is broad enough to allow for the discussion of most subjects. I would say that the issue raised by the honourable member for Inkster certainly can be discussed during the Throne Speech Debate.
With respect to the second test for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed, that is, will the public interest suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention? Although this is unquestionably a very serious matter, I do not believe the public interest will be harmed if the business of the House is not set aside to debate the motion of the member for Inkster today. Therefore, I must rule that the matter does not meet the criteria set by our rules and practices.