Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Attendance
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, how much time do I have to speak on a grievance? Fifteen minutes. Thank you very much.
The recent events today in regard to the '95 election allegations of impropriety have troubled me greatly because I know coming into this field of politics, one of my mentors was Rey Pagtakhan, and I know he has always been one to see that politics should be something of high honour, that people should be held in high esteem. It was interesting yesterday morning, when I was in my constituency and I was in the local store, I asked a number of people what they thought about the situation. What do you think? I was surprised the cynicism of people saying: well, politicians, what do you expect? All is fair in love, war and politics. That you would try to split the vote, is that not what you guys do? City councillors, many of them get lots of candidates to run against them to split the vote. This is nothing unusual. This is nothing spectacular.
I find that disturbing, that these lowered expectations of integrity the public has for politicians concerns me greatly, but separate from the issue of the actual allegation of impropriety and investigation is another subject. What has happened is now the very competency, if not the integrity, of the chief returning officer for the province of Manitoba has been called into question. Regardless of what this investigation turns out to be, regardless if it is proven or disproven, we now have a chief returning officer coming up into an election year that his competency, if not his integrity, has been questioned. We cannot allow that to go ahead into another election with the same returning officer unless that issue is resolved, so that chief returning officer has to come before his bosses. We are the bosses of the Chief Electoral Officer, this entire Chamber, and his competency has been called into question. We have to resolve that issue.
* (1430)
Now my colleague from Inkster has suggested one remedy to that, and, again, I separate that issue from the investigation of what went on in the Interlake. The issue of the competency and integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer should be brought before LAMC so that this person has a chance to defend what he did, to defend his investigation, so that all parties represented in this Chamber could go into the next election with complete faith in that person, so that every voter in Manitoba in the next election will know that is a fair election, that no one could affect the impartiality of that returning officer.
Now one of the advantages I see to that suggestion made by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) by having it at LAMC, and there were questions, oh, closed doors, closed doors, but the advantage to that is then it becomes almost nonpolitical in the sense that it does not become a media event. We are not doing it to win votes, to create a big media campaign. We are doing it for a purpose, so that everyone at LAMC, so all parties in this Chamber feel confident and could question the returning officer on what he did in that investigation and why he did what he did.
If that is not acceptable, if now this has sullied all politicians and the view the public holds about politicians, then maybe we have to have it in public. So there is an alternative. What if we called the Committee on Privileges and Elections and had that returning officer come before it so that at this public meeting of Privileges and Elections all parties could ask the returning officer questions about the investigation?
I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that the Privileges and Elections committee be directed to meet this week and that the chief returning officer for the province of Manitoba be requested to attend the committee meeting and be available to answer questions and report on the investigation of the allegation of the finance of the 1995 provincial election campaign of Mr. Sutherland.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Regretfully, the honourable member for The Maples is not permitted to introduce the motion. A grievance is an opportunity to speak on a subject matter only, so therefore the motion would be out of order.
An Honourable Member: Madam Speaker, I would ask if I could have leave by this Chamber to bring that motion forward.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) have leave to bring forward a motion under his grievance?
The honourable acting government House leader, on a point of order.
Hon. James Downey (Acting Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, no, I do not, because I think it was stated earlier in Question Period quite clearly that the Chief Electoral Officer of the province will be carrying out work on behalf of the members of the Legislature and the people of Manitoba, which in fact we would not want to see interfered with, and it is not appropriate to accept a motion at this particular time as the matter will be dealt with in another matter.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the acting government House leader, he does not have a point of order. The member asked only for leave, and I was trying to establish whether indeed there was leave to permit the member to introduce his motion.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave? No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Kowalski: Well, I am saddened by that because both the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and myself have tried to be constructive, and I have separated the issue--if the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) would have listened--from the investigation. We are talking about the competency and integrity of the returning officer of Manitoba, and regardless of that investigation, this is an election year coming up and we have to deal with that issue.
The member for Inkster and myself have offered two alternatives, not for partisan purposes, not for media attention, but to resolve the issue, and I am saddened that members--and I heard no voices not giving leave on this side of the House, but I heard many voices on that side of the House, when we were trying to be constructive, trying to resolve this issue in a productive way, that the Conservative caucus members would not give leave. I am saddened by that. We still have this issue, and I have not decided if I am going to run in the next election, but if I do run, I want to know that the returning officer is competent. I know that he cannot be influenced. I want to know that, if someone tries to influence someone to run against me, he will take the appropriate action, and I have offered two ways that I could be reassured that, and the people of Manitoba. I do not hear an alternative coming from the government side, and I deeply regret that, Madam Speaker.