Thursday, May 25, 1995
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, May 25, 1995
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Oral Question Period--Recognition by Speaker
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, under the rules of our House, I have decided to take this opportunity to introduce a matter of privilege, something that is in fact very serious, and I hope and trust that all members of this Chamber will reflect very closely on what it is I am about to say with respect to treatment of individual members inside the Chamber.
I want to start off, Madam Speaker, repeating what you yourself said just a couple of days ago, and actually prior to that, I should point out that according to Beauchesne's in Citations 115 and 117, it is clear that you have to bring your matter of privilege at the soonest opportune time. I believe I have done that.
I am standing here to concentrate my efforts and thoughts on Question Period and what took place yesterday and today, after having some research individuals go through what took place yesterday. In fact, it reaffirms that, including supplementary questions, we saw in excess of 24 questions asked by members of the New Democratic caucus, while us as Liberal MLAs were completely discarded from being able to participate in a very important aspect of parliamentary tradition. That is why I believe it is timely to be able to present that, and according to Citation 117, I hope to impress upon individuals that in fact there is need for us to enter into some form of debate, or possibly even send it into committee.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment on what you said just two days ago inside this Chamber when you accepted the responsibility of being the Speaker, and I quote on page 2 of May 23: "It will be my aim and duty to uphold the principles and traditions of the House and secure for each member the right to express his or her opinions within the limits necessary to preserve decorum; to recognize the rights and privileges of the honourable members, the political groups and the House itself; to facilitate the transaction of public business in an orderly manner and, above all, to seek to be fair and impartial in the decisions you entrust to me."
* (1335)
Madam Speaker, Beauchesne's is very clear in terms of the type of authority that you have. In fact, you can look into Beauchesne's and you will see that you have the authority to even look at the statutory orders and, if need be, to change or to do what you feel is the most appropriate thing to do. I believe you should do just that with respect to Question Period. Other Speakers, Speakers prior to you, have done that.
Tradition has not been that great inside this Chamber, of having three parties. When we have had independents, individuals, the recognition that they have been given for Question Period has been considerably better than what took place yesterday.
On numerous occasions, as everyone in this Chamber saw, I stood up to get acknowledged by the Speaker to be able to pose what I believe was a good question and in the best interests of the constituents that I serve, and, in fact, for Manitobans, and everyone should have the ability to ask that question, Madam Speaker.
In the past, what has happened? Well, if you look back, you could say there was June Westbury, the former member for Fort Rouge, and what sort of treatment did Ms. June Westbury receive? I had the opportunity to have someone talk to her earlier this morning, and she indicated that she was given the courtesy of being allowed to ask a question virtually every day, and on some days, she was given a second question.
Madam Speaker, if you look at when those questions were asked, you will see that in many cases, it was the third and sometimes it was the second. Sometimes, she followed Howard Pawley when Howard Pawley was in opposition. That was under a Conservative administration.
Let us go back not as far. Let us go back to when Sharon Carstairs was the lone Liberal inside this Chamber. What sort of treatment did this independent MLA have inside the Chamber? I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, if you look at the treatment that she was given, and that was under an NDP administration, she was given at least one question a day as an independent. [interjection]
Madam Speaker, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) might choose to make light of a very serious matter. This is something that is broader than maybe what the member for Kildonan really wants to deal with. He might be more focused on the New Democratic Party. I am talking in terms of what is right and what is fair to all individuals, all individual members of this Chamber. That member for Kildonan is no better than I and should be respectful in terms of what parliamentary tradition is all about.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would caution the honourable member to be very careful in the selection of his words.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, excuse me for digressing.
The point of the matter is, everyone inside this Chamber was elected. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) was elected as the Leader of the Conservative Party. Mr. Ashton was elected, or the member for Thompson, as a New Democrat, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I was elected as a Liberal MLA, and I am proud of that fact. I believe that I, too, as an individual have rights to be able to ask questions. I believe that if we look in terms of what has happened over the years when we have had independent members inside this Chamber who represented more than just their constituents, the June Westburys, the Sharon Carstairs, that they were allowed, they were provided, the opportunity from the Speaker to be able to express, to be able to ask and participate in Question Period.
* (1340)
Under the current setup, we have a question in terms of, well, a political party requires four. Madam Speaker, we acknowledge we do not have party status. I am not asking for party status. What I am asking for is respect, and I believe I am entitled to respect, parliamentary respect. I believe that I and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) deserve that respect. I will stand up today, I will stand up tomorrow, and I will do what I feel is in my best interest, in my constituents' best interest, thereby the interests of the people of this province to ensure that individual MLAs are given the respect that they are entitled to. I do not see that happening.
I believe that if you look at--because we have not had the opportunity--I have left messages to be able to talk to you, and we did have some opportunities to discuss. I trust that if we look in terms of what has happened in the past, if we look in terms of both Conservative and New Democratic administrations, the independents have been given their fair share. I am not asking for more. I believe it was something in the neighbourhood of 27 questions yesterday--it might have been 26, possibly 25--there was in excess. There are 23 New Democrats. There were more questions asked by the New Democrats than members, and, even though I stood up time and time again, Madam Speaker, after the third or fourth question along with supplementaries, I was not acknowledged.
I would ask that we look at customs from the past. We do not have too much. The New Democrats, some might choose to try to say, well, look what is happening in Ottawa. Look what is happening in this province. What we are talking about is the Province of Manitoba. What I am talking about is what is happening inside this Chamber and, Madam Speaker, you have the control. You are the individual who can allow us to ask the questions. If you decide ultimately to say, no, that we are going to continue to allow the New Democrats to have all of the questions for Question Period or assign them a question at the end of Question Period, well, that is your choice.
But I would strongly urge you in the very best way I can to acknowledge the fact that I am a Liberal MLA, that my colleague from The Maples is a Liberal MLA and so is the member for St. Boniface. We went through an election just like everyone else in this Chamber. We are all proud of the political parties that we come from. We all have a significant role. The Liberal Party is going to survive. The Liberal Party will survive no matter what sort of decision that you ultimately make but as a member of this Chamber I do believe I have the right to be able to pose questions during Question Period.
Yesterday, whether it was an innocent mistake, Madam Speaker, or whatever it was, I do believe that we have to rectify what could be a very long-lasting decision that will have an impact because ultimately the average session sits for 91 days. If we are in here for another four years, you are talking at least--and the members from the government side say at least and they could be right--we are talking at least 360 days in which we are going to be sitting inside this Chamber and for a full hour discussing the affairs of this province. I do not believe that any member should be denied.
I even acknowledged under the previous Speaker, when he would sit down with me and he would say, well, you know, all of us have rights. I do not know if I can say my first name. He would say, Kevin, all of us have rights and that I have to even respect the backbenchers. I will tell you something, Madam Speaker, when a backbencher from the government stood up and expressed a question--and I remember the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) in particular would stand up and ask several questions--I respected the fact that he, too, is a member and albeit I might have preferred that he did not stand up, I recognize, as the Speaker then, that he had a right to ask a question.
* (1345)
You know something, Madam Speaker, you will see that even the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) and other backbenchers, when they asked questions, they asked questions that were not necessarily the last question of the day. Many of them were four or five questions into it.
I still appreciate the fact that for seven years--actually I was the House leader for just over four years, but as the deputy House leader, I had opportunity to meet with the former Speaker on many different occasions. Question Period was something that we constantly talked about, because it was something that was always in dispute. You know, one of the unfortunate things is I never really got the opportunity to establish the same sort of a rapport with the Speaker as other members, because I had to defend what was in our caucus's best interest.
Madam Speaker, the Speaker who was there before you was very clear on what he believed was important in terms of questions and who should be able to ask questions and when they should be able to ask questions. When we talked about it, the Speaker indicated to me, look, we want to be fair, and you will get your fair share of questions. That is what the Speaker told me. We would then have the dialogue--well, what sorts of questions and where are those questions going to be, because that is important, to have your fair share. You could say, well, if there are 26 questions or 29 questions, you should be entitled to three questions, so I will give you three questions.
Madam Speaker, that gives you the proportion, correct, if you like, based on the number of people who are inside the Chamber, but it does not really allude to the fact of what priority your question is going to have during Question Period. This is what it is that we are talking about also.
It is not just good enough to say, look, we are going to give you--okay, fine, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) stands up, and maybe he has a valid argument, and we will give him a certain percentage of the number of questions that are asked during the day, because that is only one part of it. The other part of it, Madam Speaker, is, of course, where are those questions going to be asked.
That is the dialogue that the former Speaker and I had. We reached a consensus. Through that consensus, the members of the Liberal caucus were content, the members of the New Democratic caucus were content and so were the government backbenchers. They all had avenues in which to have dialogue. The Speaker spoke with the different members. It is important that we, too, sit down and we talk about Question Period in terms of the priority, where the questions are going to be asked. Until we do that, it is the issue about which I have full intentions of standing up again and again and again.
I hope and I trust, Madam Speaker, and I am convinced that you will give it serious consideration. I believe you meant what you said the other day inside the Chamber. I trust and hope that this will be a matter that will be dealt with, with the utmost importance.
Suffice to say, I would conclude my remarks by making reference to Madam Carstairs and Madam Westbury and the treatment that they received while they were independents inside this Chamber and not to ask for anything better than what they received, but to at least be given the same sorts of courtesies, the same sort of acknowledgement. After all, we are not one independent; there are in fact three members inside this Chamber that were elected on the Liberal Party platform and sit here first and foremost as MLAs, but also as Liberal MLAs.
On that, Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration at the earliest opportunity, and that the Speaker report back to the House on the results of those deliberations.
* (1350)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, there can be no better indication of the rights of all members of this House that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was able, for the first 20 minutes of this sitting, to discuss this matter of privilege, and I think that should be commented upon.
I also believe that it should also be noted that we are in the second full sitting day of the Legislature, and I find it, quite frankly, somewhat surprising that the member would be bringing in a matter of privilege relating to one Question Period. I also find it somewhat concerning that some of the comments, I would suggest, were bordering not directly upon questioning your decisions as Speaker, and let there be no doubt about the role of the Speaker in determining who speaks, who ask questions.
I will quote Beauchesne Citation 461: "Officially there is no list of Members desiring to speak in debate. Any Member who wishes to speak may rise and endeavour to catch the Speaker's eye. . . ."
I would also point out, Madam Speaker, to correct the member for Inkster, that we have 23 members. I believe, yesterday, nine of our members asked questions. The tradition in this House is one question, followed by two supplementaries. Yesterday, 14 of our members did not have the opportunity to ask a question because of the time limitations. Neither did any of the government members, the government backbenchers, have the opportunity to ask questions later.
I would suggest we keep this in perspective and, quite frankly, I believe that the member for Inkster should receive the same kind of consideration that any of us would expect. Having served in this House, both on the government side and as an officially recognized third party and now as an officially recognized opposition party, I realize it can often be difficult to make the adjustments that occur following an election. I would suggest to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that he will be given every consideration possible by this House, but the fact is that the Liberal Party did not win the required numbers for official party status.
I would suggest that they should look very carefully at what has happened, I think, to the two federal parties that found themselves in that situation. The rules that we have in place were applied in those cases; they are being applied in this case. They do not affect the ability of any member of this House to ask questions. I would expect that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and any member of this House will be recognized in the traditions of this House, which is that you, Madam Speaker, are the final authority in terms of who is recognized.
I would suggest to the member for Inkster, and I have raised a number of matters of privilege in my time, one of the clearest indications when one looks at the tradition in terms of Beauchesne and other authorities in terms of a matter of privilege is that they are serious matters and ought not to be raised in this House unless we are dealing with a very serious matter.
I think what we are dealing with here is a concern based on one Question Period. I suspect there are other issues that the member was raising that really had very little to do with the matter of privilege itself, related to the new status that he finds himself in, and the three members do, of not being an officially recognized party.
I want to say, Madam Speaker, that we believe every member of the House should be accorded every consideration in terms of recognition, particularly in Question Period, and we believe also in the role of the Speaker in doing that. I think it is highly inappropriate in this our second full day in the Legislature after one Question Period to be dealing with a supposed matter of privilege dealing with your actions in Question Period yesterday. We believe there is no prima facie case of privilege.
We also believe, Madam Speaker, as we indicated certainly in the first day, that we expect you will perform your duties as Speaker under Beauchesne 461 and many other citations in Beauchesne indicating that it is clearly your role to recognize members. There is no speaking roster. No one in this House takes precedence over other members, whether they be in the government, the official opposition or part of a party which is not officially recognized.
* (1355)
No one takes precedence, and it is not a matter of privilege if I do not get recognized one day, and I am not happy with it, or any other member of this House does not get recognized any one day and is not happy with it. Therefore, I believe there is no prima facie case of privilege.
Madam Speaker: A matter of privilege is indeed a serious concern. I thank the honourable member for Thompson and the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for bringing this matter to the House. I will be taking this matter under advisement to consult the authorities, and I will return in the very near future with a ruling.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Speaker's Statement
Madam Speaker: I am pleased to inform the Assembly that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly today has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate showing the election of Darren Praznik as member for the constituency of Lac du Bonnet which was delayed due to an application for recount which was withdrawn today. I hereby table the return to the Writ of Election.
The honourable member has taken the oath, signed the roll and now has the right to take his seat. On behalf of all honourable members, I wish to welcome you again to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Funding Model--Public Education
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Surinder Kamdoz, Garry Paziuk, Noreen Head and others requesting the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) to reconsider the funding model to ensure that Thompson and other communities in this province are able to maintain quality public education.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
American Airlines
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I have a statement to make. What a great day it is in Manitoba.
It is a great day in Manitoba. I was delighted today to participate in inaugurating American Airlines' newest service for Manitobans. I would like to commend the officials at American for their astute judgment in bringing Winnipeg into the largest airline hub on the continent. The addition of a nonstop flight daily service between Winnipeg and Chicago reflects the growing significance of Manitoba and of our capital city in North America.
Madam Speaker, this new service which will introduce three nonstop flights daily brings two major advantages at least to Manitoba. One is that it provides yet another link between the people of this province and cities across the continent and around the world. For business people based in Manitoba and those considering relocating and starting up new businesses here in Manitoba, convenient air service to major U.S. cities is clearly an advantage.
The second major benefit of this service is that tourists from across America and abroad now have another direct and efficient route to visit our great province.
Madam Speaker, with the growth of free trade between Canada and the United States, and now with Mexico as well, being integrated into the hub of America's largest airline is of even greater importance to Manitoba.
We believe Winnipeg's location at the northern end of a trade corridor running all the way south to Monterrey, Mexico, our central position within Canada and our airport's 24-hour operation make us a natural site as a commercial transportation hub for the next century.
This new service, Madam Speaker, starting today, is a long stride in that direction, and I thank honourable members for this opportunity.
* (1400)
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. This House seems to be preoccupied with jets of one kind or another, and this is the kind that we like.
We are very pleased that you are announcing the actions of American Airlines in establishing this route. We would trust that you will undertake a more comprehensive strategy of marketing the advantages of Winnipeg within that 10 million population catchment area, and that, hopefully, you will also manage to correct the tourism brochure regarding Brandon at the same time.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I have the pleasure of tabling with the House the Annual Report for the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation for the years '93 and '94; along with that, as well, the Supplementary Information for the Legislative Review of my department's Estimates which I am anticipating shortly.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the departmental expenditure Estimates for the Department of Rural Development.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw attention to members of the House that in the gallery with us this afternoon, we have sixty Grade 11 students from Warren Collegiate. These students are under the direction of Mr. Jake Wiebe, and this school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.