LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, March 15, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): In accordance with the provisions
of Rule 65.(6.1) the sequence for consideration of the Estimates of the various
government departments by each section of the Committee of Supply has been
established as follows, and I will table that listing, Mr. Speaker. It is duly signed by the opposition House
leader and by myself.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that
Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a
committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment, that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to
consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Agreed? Order, please.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would like to‑‑I do not know
how‑‑withdraw that motion and move the proper motion.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that
this House at this sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the
Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Government
House leader (Mr. Manness), seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that this House, at this sitting, will resolve itself into a
committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Agreed?
No?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that debate be adjourned.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? Okay. The question before the House is‑‑
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if the government is unwilling to
allow me to adjourn debate, I will be more than happy to start the debate at
this point in time.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
There was a question already before the House: Should debate be adjourned? We will deal with that matter first. Then I will recognize the honourable member
for
The
question before the House is: Shall
debate be adjourned?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? All those in favour,
please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
* (2005)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, just to indicate that it was on
division, but I would like to take this opportunity‑‑[interjection] It does not mean that the
bells are going to ring. Do not worry,
Mr. Manness. Boy, oh boy. I am going to take‑‑[interjection] I hope the government
does not get overly excited. I am not
saying that the bells should ring and we are asking for a recorded vote‑‑a
very, very sensitive government, I tell you, recently.
Mr.
Speaker, what the government has done is, they have brought in something in
which they really had not consulted with at least the third opposition, and
that should not surprise me, because this particular House leader does not have
any sense of fairness or genuine concern about co‑operating and ensuring
that the House business is in fact being dealt with. [interjection!
The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says that the clock is running and we might
want to ask questions of the minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what
is most important at this stage in the game is that members are given the
opportunity to be able to debate this motion because in fact it is a debatable
motion.
Earlier
today, I was not really given the opportunity to debate something which the
government was trying to put on to us, something that I felt was most
unfortunate, and I thought that I might take this opportunity to talk about a
few of the concerns that I have with respect to this government and some of the
actions that this government has taken.
I
wanted to talk about a grant that was cut back, the grant that the government‑‑[interjection] I appreciate the
opportunity to be able to digest some of those off‑the‑record
comments that have been going around. I
can assure everyone that is concerned, legitimately concerned, not to be
overworried, that even though I am here there is a hard‑working campaign
committee ensuring that my interests are, in fact, being taken care of. They have nothing to fear that, even though
my competition might not necessarily be here at this present moment, my
campaign is still in full swing and things will unfold as they will.
But,
Mr. Speaker, let me talk specifically about something that occurred today that
I believe the minister responsible intentionally did or something that she has
been planning on doing ever since she took the responsibility of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship. I want to go
over it in good detail because this particular budget says very, very clearly
what it is that they think about the multicultural community.
You
will recall that, when this government was first elected, Mr. Speaker, the
first thing that the minister did was to take away‑‑or actually she
had attended a meeting with the Manitoba Intercultural Council. When the minister met with the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, what happened there, you will see, is that the minister
was disappointed with what the Manitoba Intercultural Council had to say. At that point in time, the minister then made
the decision that she could not support the
* (2010)
Now,
Mr. Speaker, according to the press release that was issued today, they have
now indicated with this particular budget that the Manitoba Intercultural
Council will not receive any monies.
Well, what that does, for all intents and purposes, is it kills MIC, the
Manitoba Intercultural Council. Now I
find that is somewhat unfortunate, that this is something that we believe that
the government has in fact done a disservice. [interjection! Well, to the
minister‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, there is an incumbency that
there should be some relevancy with respect to the member's remarks. The
purpose of the motion is to set up a committee dealing with supply. That is what we are debating right now. The member now is into debate associated with
some aspect of a decision that was made today.
The member, if he would let committee set up and then move into that
committee, would have incredible opportunity to ask questions and make
reference to that, but, indeed, the motion before us is whether or not there is
a willingness to set up the committee to set to deal with Supply, the 240
hours, over all the departments of government.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, on the same point of
order, indeed, this is not a grievance, as perhaps some people are under the
misapprehension that it is. While the
House leader does have a point that perhaps the member's remarks are not
specifically relevant to this, I do not think there is the same kind of
requirement on Supply motions. Relevance
can be broadly viewed by the member that is speaking.
I
must admit that I wonder if the Liberal member is being relevant to anything in
particular speaking on this, but that is his right. I would suggest we let him continue on this
particular motion.
Mr. Lamoureux: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat
disappointed in the remarks from the opposition House leader and somewhat
surprised with the remarks from the government House leader. He himself, in his answer, said that if I
allow this to go into committee, then I will have the opportunity to ask the
questions that I am suggesting within the debate.
What
we are talking about is the debate in principle of going into committee and
there is absolutely nothing wrong. It is
completely relevant. The government has
taken away funding from an organization, funding in which I would be able to
ask the minister if we went into the committee‑‑[interjection!‑‑and
to the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger), we will get into it when members
have been given the opportunity to be able to debate it.
Had
the government House leader, in co‑operation with the opposition House
leaders‑‑and there is a plural when I say opposition House leaders‑‑maybe
we might have been into it, but government has to realize that they do not have
the ultimate control of this Chamber.
This Chamber is for each and every one of these individuals, and it
should not be taken advantage of the rules of this‑‑
* (2015)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order raised, I would like to remind the honourable
member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would
pose the question to you just to seek your guidance. Well, for clarification on the rules in terms
of relevancy, I would argue that we can in fact, and I will continue to talk
about‑‑and if someone feels that I am being irrelevant, I would
suggest that they stand up‑‑but I would suggest to you that we can
talk about the budget.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Anyway, I am going to continue. The government brought forward a press
release earlier today that had a number of grants that were being taken away. We had today a number of questions that came
from the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) to the Leader of the
third party (Mrs. Carstairs) dealing with the impact of the decisions that were
made from this government.
These
are the types of things that we believe that the government has not necessarily
been straightforward, that the government has an opportunity and has a
responsibility to come to this Chamber better prepared in order to tell us what
the overall picture is, that we do not feel that this government is telling us
specifically, I say, generally, what its plan is with respect to the overall
Estimates of this government.
I
wanted to comment on one particular grant, because that is the grant which I am
very familiar with. That is, of course‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I find it offensive to this
Chamber that a member, on a motion of whether or not this House should set up a
committee to deal with Supply, takes a press release today that announces
certain grants, and now is going to focus in on one of those grant areas where
withdrawal of funding was made to a specific agency and attempt to make a 40‑minute
speech on that.
The
member has complete licence on Budget Debate to touch any and every issue that
is associated with the fiscal decisions of this government. Interim Supply next week, he has that same
opportunity. A grievance, he has that
same opportunity.
The
member has unlimited areas and times on motions when he can have a far‑reaching
debate on any issue under the sun, but not on this motion. This motion deals with whether or not this
House wants to set up a committee to deal with Supply.
Mr.
Speaker, I expect you to call him to that motion. This is not a freewheeling debate. The freewheeling debate can come on many,
many motions, but not on this one.
Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I
think our rules are quite clear in terms of relevance and repetition. On Beauchesne Citation 459, it does indicate: "Relevance is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member should be
given the benefit of the doubt, although the Speaker has frequently admonished
Members who have strayed in debate."
I
think, Mr. Speaker, you had admonished the member previously.
I
think the point that should be raised here is that the member will have the
opportunity to get into wide‑ranging debate on various other sections of
the Supply procedure, most particularly Interim Supply and in terms of
grievance motions.
I
would suggest perhaps again that you rule on the relevancy, but perhaps we
might just remind members there are other opportunities to get into
freewheeling debate and not on this particular portion of the motion.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind all honourable members of our Rule 30:
"Speeches shall be direct to the question under
consideration."
Again,
I will remind the honourable member for
I
would ask the honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we see is a
government House leader and a somewhat frustrated opposition House leader not
wanting to lose any sort of composure over an issue which both are very
sensitive to. They feel, Mr. Speaker,
that in fact if they stand up and try to intimidate that they will be successful.
* (2020)
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I rose twice, both on points of
order. On both occasions the member for
Mr. Speaker: Although I do not believe the word "intimidate"
does show up under unparliamentary language, I would like to caution the
honourable member that in view of the fact that we have the watching public
here this evening, a bunch of young Girl Guides and Boy Scouts, I would ask the
honourable member to pick and choose his words very carefully.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: I would continue by saying that we should not be going into
Committee of Supply for a number of reasons.
Mr. Speaker, the primary reason‑‑I will give the member for
Emerson (Mr. Penner) a number of reasons as to why we should not be going into
this.
Earlier
today and in fact on Friday we saw a government try to bring into this
Legislature an unprecedented step, something which the current government House
leader himself (Mr. Manness) said was unprecedented. Completely unparliamentary is what I believe
the government House leader had said.
The government has felt, for whatever reason, that it does not need to
sit down and to negotiate. This is
something that we had no advance warning of.
Mr. Manness: I told you three weeks ago.
Mr. Lamoureux: No, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) did
not say to me three weeks ago that he was going to be bringing in Committee of
Supply at eight o'clock this evening. He
had no indication whatsoever so that if members of the caucus‑‑[interjection]
Well,
you know, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) feels that what I am saying
is wrong, I would challenge him to put it onto the record when he did tell me,
because he did not tell me we would be going into the Committee of Supply on
Monday evening.
Mr. Manness: No. I
said I would be going there before the budget.
That is what I told you.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, he says, before we go into the budget,
anytime by April 6. That is great. I wonder, you know, Mr. Speaker, in fairness
to my caucus colleagues, at least my caucus colleagues, as a courtesy it might
have been good to know that we were going into Committee of Supply this evening
so that if they had some questions when we went into the committee they could
pose those questions, but the government has not been forthright with what
their intentions are in dealing with the agenda of this Chamber, because they
do not necessarily have an agenda.
The
Committee of Supply does provide individuals the opportunity to be able to ask
questions of any of the ministers dealing with budgetary lines or things that
are happening within. This is the reason
why I would even argue and continue to argue, and I might even get into it a
bit later, that what I was referring to at the beginning of the speech is in
fact relevant to this particular debate.
It
just depends on how sensitive one is in the time of the year or the time of
negotiations. Obviously this particular
government House leader is very sensitive because he feels somewhat frustrated
no doubt that things are not going the way in which he had planned them to go,
maybe feeling that we as a third party in this Chamber have not been as co‑operative
as he would have liked to have thought we would have been.
* (2025)
We
want to be co‑operative. We have
indicated on many occasions certain things that we would be willing to do to
ensure that government is able to achieve what it is that they want to do. That has occurred not only in this session
but in previous sessions. I could go
back to shortly after the last provincial election, where the three House
leaders sat down and they decided we would have what was the shortest session,
Mr. Speaker, from what I understand the shortest session of the history here in
the
What
the government is doing is trying to put opposition members, and I cannot say
all of the opposition members because I do not know if in fact the NDP were
consulted‑‑did they know that this was going to be happening?
I
can speak on behalf of our caucus. We
did not know and by the government taking the actions that it did at eight
o'clock or at ten after eight, because I know that we got off to a bit of a
rocky start because of his sensitivity, Mr. Speaker, but because of the action
of the minister, what has happened is that caucus colleagues of mine that might
have questions that they want to ask of the different ministers are not going
to be able to ask those if in fact they were wanting to ask them this evening
or quite possibly a bit later. I do not
know in terms of what the NDP were going to do as an opposition, had they
planned on asking questions throughout the evening, or what intentions are of
others.
That
is why I would argue that there should be a common courtesy. The courtesy has been there somewhat in the
past from the government House leader, and I would have anticipated that we
would have been given some sort of forewarning.
For the government House leader to say, well, at one LAMC meeting we
said that we were going to bring in Committee of Supply before the budget. Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the minister,
yes, he might have said that. I am not
going to say, he did not say that. The
budget is going to come down April 6.
When did he know we were going to be going into Committee of
Supply? Did you know today? Did you know
at eight o'clock? Did you know after you
found out that you are not going to get your departments into the
Estimates? Is that when you decided to
go into Committee of Supply?
An Honourable Member: It has been on the Notice Paper.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we did not know that the
government‑‑we did not know.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that the government does want to get into the Estimates
process. I do not believe that we should
be going into the Estimates process. I
am going to let you know why I believe that.
In
fact, the Leader has given me the opportunity to be able to have her
designation on the motion. I anticipate
that what will happen is that we will not go into the Department of Family
Services and we will not go into the Department of Highways. It is not a question of not being able to or
not wanting to be able to discuss the different cuts that are out there. It is a question of having the main Estimates
before us like every other Legislature has had for the last number of years. [interjection]
* (2030)
Well,
you do not know‑‑the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer)
knows no more than I in terms of the considerations that were given with that
exception to the rules. There is a
tradition that has to be followed. Mr.
Speaker, we as an opposition party have a responsibility to ensure that it is
going to be followed.
I
was somewhat hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that I would be given unlimited debate time
on this, but I have just been told that I would not be able to. So that means I am going to have to be a bit
more specific.
I
am going to get back to the lack of co‑operation from this
government. I have to comment on the
lack of co‑operation, because the government and the official opposition
are very sensitive whenever I start talking about the budget because they
believe that this particular motion has nothing to do with the budget.
Mr.
Speaker, out of respect for that, I will stay away from that budgetary
discussion and just focus again on the importance of allowing individuals the
opportunity of having some sort of notice that would allow people to be
somewhat prepared. It would be nice.
Can
you imagine at eight o'clock we find out that we are going to be going into
Committee of Supply? This is what we
found out. At eight o'clock we are told
we are going to go into Committee of Supply.
Well,
what kind of notice‑‑how does that allow members of the opposition
the ability to be able to ask the questions that they feel are necessary to be
asked of the government? Mr. Speaker,
after all I am sure that the government ministers would like the questions to
be well researched and informed so that when we ask a question the minister
would be better able and better equipped to give us a response that in fact
would be worthy or meaningful of something, Mr. Speaker.
That
in itself is one of the reasons why the Committee of Supply, we should not be
even going into the Committee of Supply.
Another
reason‑‑
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I will make you a deal,
Kevie. You have a leadership campaign. You take two weeks holidays, let us get on
with the business, and you go out with the leadership.
Mr. Lamoureux: Maybe the Minister of Health should leave the debate for myself at
least at this point in time, because he and the rest of the government and the
NDP want to get into the committee stage.
So if they do not want to debate it, and there are members who are
willing to be able to debate it, well, we are entitled to do that debating.
I
know that the government is a bit sensitive in terms of, rules do not
necessarily have to be followed nowadays, that they are quite willing to go
over the rules or ignore the rules wherever possible‑‑
Mr. Orchard: We make the rules.
Mr. Lamoureux: No, the government does not make the rules.
Mr. Orchard: We make the rules in this Chamber.
Mr. Lamoureux: The government does not make the rules. It is the Legislative Chamber that
contributes to the rules.
Mr. Orchard: That is right. That is what I said.
Mr. Lamoureux: That is not what the Minister of Health said.
Mr. Orchard: It is very unusual that New Democrats and
Conservatives would agree on how we do the rules.
Mr. Lamoureux: No, that is not true. The Conservatives and New Democrats have been
agreeing a lot lately together. That
does cause me some concern, but I guess there has to be a silver lining in
everything. The silver lining I guess
would be something to the effect that they are somewhat fearful of a Liberal
resurgence, and a Liberal resurgence, Mr. Speaker, will in fact occur. All you have to do is just look around at
some of the glum faces and the in‑fighting that is going on in the other
two. We have people who are leaving, not
only leaving caucuses; they are leaving and joining other political parties.
Anyway,
I digress somewhat. Mr. Speaker,
Committee of Supply is very important in the sense that what it does is, it
allows us the opportunity to be able to ask those questions, very important
questions no doubt, that need to be asked, and the Leader of the official
opposition wants to get into those questions, and I am sure that, I hope at
least he does want to ask a question or two, it is not just an attempt to get
myself to sit down and so forth.
Mr.
Speaker, I recall an incident‑‑it was not that long ago‑‑where
it was suggested that I sit down because they want to ask questions, and then
the NDP and the Conservatives again took sides and they passed it. They called it the concurrence, if they will
recall it, in which they took that liberty, and my mistake at that time was
listening to a Mr. Cowan and a Mr. Manness to some extent. It happened that time, so you will have to
forgive me if I do not necessarily believe when I am being heckled from the
Leader of the official opposition and members of the government that this might
not necessarily be the best and most opportune time to stand up and give a
debate.
What
we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the principle of what this government is
doing and the fashion in which it is trying to accomplish it. So what is the government doing? It is trying to go into a committee, and the
way that it is trying to go into that committee is really what we oppose.
[interjection! The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is wrong. It is not by a consensus. If it was a consensus, that would imply that
there was a general agreement from all of the members. That did not occur. Maybe the member for Burrows and his caucus
were advised that this would be happening.
Maybe they were advised that this in fact would be happening this
evening.
But,
Mr. Speaker, they might not necessarily like to believe that we are an
opposition party, but I would suggest to you that we are just as legitimate and
argue that we are more of a real opposition than them, than the New Democratic
Party. We, too, deserve a warning. We do deserve the co‑operation from the
government House leader as to what its intentions are. The government has not been forthright with
their intentions.
We
knew that, for example, they were going to try to bring in two departments into
the Estimates, the Department of Family Services and the Department of
Highways, something that we had indicated to the government we could not
do. The reason why we said we could not
do that, Mr. Speaker, was quite simply because we do not believe we can go into
the line‑by‑line discussions of any department until we have the
Main Estimates tabled.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, that is not unreasonable to ask for. The reason why I say it is not unreasonable
is because it has never been done before.
It has never been done before in the
I
go back to two remarks. The first remark
was something where there was a consensus between the government House leader
and the New Democratic Party and that was that they want to do something now. There is no sense in wasting time. Mr. Speaker, there is no need to waste time,
I agree. We do not have to waste time,
and I propose a way in which we can ensure that there is no wasting of time.
Mr.
Speaker, the second thing‑‑and the government House leader himself
is the one who said it‑‑he said that it was unparliamentary what
they were asking us to do. I agree with
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the government House leader, that what
he was asking the official opposition party and the opposition party to do was,
in fact, unparliamentary. [interjection! Well, that is what the government
House leader said. [interjection! No, it is very clear. I will get another opportunity in which I
will quote it right from Hansard.
* (2040)
This
particular debate, we had anticipated the government to push on this
afternoon. In fact, they did attempt to
push on it. Then, Mr. Speaker, when they
figured out that the Liberal Party was not going to allow the government to do
this unprecedented action, they decided that the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) would adjourn debate and not even allow myself the opportunity to
start debate on that issue, which is a shame.
Out of the time that I have been here, it is the first time that I have
seen the government prevent someone from speaking, from debating on a motion or
a bill. We even had a vote on the issue,
a vote which indicated that not only did the Conservatives not want me to
speak, the NDP did not want me to speak.
This
is something that I find is somewhat unfortunate, because whether you agree
with what it is that we want to do as an opposition party or as an individual
member, the very least, I suggest to all members of this Chamber, is to respect
the rules and procedures and precedents and traditions that have been
established, and, Mr. Speaker, that has not occurred. This government, and with co‑operation,
has not done that, and now we see as a direct result of this the government is
now trying to move into Committee of Supply.
Had the government wanted to again have that co‑operation from the
Liberal caucus, as I am sure that they had‑‑he must have consulted
with the New Democratic caucus‑‑but had he consulted with us, we
could have, in fact, moved into Committee of Supply‑‑[interjection!
But,
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of having one's nose out of joint; it is a
question of being able to be aware as to what is going to be coming up so that
members are able to ask the questions of the ministers and so forth. Well, I do not believe that is too much to
ask. It is not too much to ask for a
common courtesy of the government House leader indicating to the opposition
party that we want to go into Committee of Supply this evening.
Mr.
Speaker, even had the government House leader implied it to us at six o'clock
on Friday that eight o'clock we were wanting to go into Committee of Supply,
and we felt that it was an appropriate thing to do, then we would have entered
into the Committee of Supply. But I
think this has provided an excellent opportunity for me to have commented on
the issues that I did comment on. After
all, what the government, as I say, has done in the recent votes that we have
had on Friday and the two that we had today does, in fact, need to be
reinforced, because it dangerously come close to infringing on the rights of
individual members inside this Chamber.
You
know, it was interesting. I do not know
if the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) intentionally sat in his chair
a bit longer than he usually does when he stood up for that one vote. I think that the dean of the Chamber, whom I
have had some discussions with‑‑I do respect the things that he
does say with respect to the rules. I do
not necessarily agree with some of the stuff that he has done or some of the
things that he has said, particularly that you have to have four members in the
Chamber to vote, because that was not in fact practised previously.
I
am sure that there are members in this Chamber that cross all three political
parties, that believe that what the government is doing is not right, that the
government should not‑‑if it wants to do what it is, that if it
wants to get those two departments in particular brought through, then do it
with the unanimous consent of all the individuals inside the Chamber.
If
they were to take that sort of approach to dealing with the agenda of the
Chamber there would be that much more co‑operation. It is the same thing with the Committee of
Supply. If the government House leader
was more co‑operative, we potentially could have been into the questions
and answers of the ministers at this point in time. Potentially, we could have been but,
unfortunately, for whatever reason, the government has decided not to do it.
Mr.
Speaker, that is something in which I believe that I hope the government will
think about. I would like to see the
government House leader think about what it is that he is suggesting. If I can give some advice or an opinion or a
suggestion to the minister or to the government House leader, it would be not
to force in the Estimates until, at the very least, the main Estimates have
been there. We cannot as a responsible
opposition comment and question on issues or budgetary detailed lines not
knowing what the other Supplementary Estimates are going to be.
This
is not something that is new. This is
something that every other Legislature, from what I understand, in particular
in
Ah,
Mr. Speaker, they walked into the trap.
I was hoping that you would hear the bit of uproar that they just
finished giving. The Liberal Party has
been prepared to pass bills into committee.
We are not the ones that are standing the committees. Whatever happened to the Sunday shopping
bill? It has never been called into
committee. Here we are going into the
committee‑‑the government has asked for the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I fail to
see what the Sunday shopping bill has to do with setting ourselves up into
Committee of Supply. I ask the
honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: The government wants to go into Committee of
Supply because they say that there is no other agenda, that there is no other
debate. Mr. Speaker, we have not even
seen the government act on other issues, on the other agenda items that this government
is supposed to have, things like the Sunday shopping, that the committee has
not been called. Even the Leader of the
official opposition agrees with me on that point.
Mr.
Speaker, if the government had its agenda in place and knew what it was going
to be doing, had some things which we could be debating and was calling those
up for debate, then we debate them.
Then, if we are done debating them, we go into the Committee of Supply,
or when the government gives notice saying that we are going to go into
Committee of Supply, then we do that.
But, once the government's agenda is over, if you will, and April 6 is
what he says the budget date is going to be, well then, why continue to waste
the taxpayers' dollars by sitting inside here?
Why not recess it if it is necessary? [interjection!
* (2050)
I
will deal with that, once we get into the main motion about going into the
Estimates, where I will have ample opportunity to talk about it, Mr. Speaker.
Had
the government House leader been able to deal with the opposition parties on a
consultation basis, in fact, we could achieve a lot more, not to be preoccupied
with not sitting in July, not sitting for a summer period‑‑and this
is the reason that we have to sit now. I
would ask for the government House leader to seriously consider and not to try
force in the Estimates prior to the Main Estimates because, in fact, that would
be‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The
honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Ashton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, first of all, if
you could perhaps remind members of which motion we are dealing with.
Mr. Speaker: Presently we are dealing with the motion and I
will read the motion back to the House:
It was moved by the honourable government House leader (Mr. Manness) and
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that the House at this
sitting would resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
Mr. Ashton: I asked for that reminder because the last 50
minutes I wondered if I had perhaps come to the wrong place today, Mr.
Speaker. I thought I had come to the
Manitoba Legislature. I thought the
Minister of Finance had introduced a Supply motion.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the opposition
House leader that, in fact, the time to bring up this particular issue, or if
he is trying to raise a point of order, he would have been better off to raise
that point of order in terms of relevancy in the last 15, 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The
honourable member does not have a point of order. Clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I was not raising a point of order. I was speaking to the motion, and I would
advise the Liberal House leader perhaps to come out of the twilight zone of
irrelevancy and understand what we are debating. We are debating a motion that would take us
into Committee of Supply.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, the order was announced by the House leader at eight o'clock,
agreed to by all parties in this House in terms of the order.
I
understand that the Liberal member has a concern; he feels we should not be
debating Estimates until after the Budget.
Let us understand what that would result in. The Budget has been announced on April
6. We would not be debating Estimates
until after the Budget Debate has taken place.
We would be into the middle of April before we would be dealing with it.
I,
for one, after seeing what has happened in departments such as Family Services,
and our caucus having seen what has happened with some of the cuts that have
taken place in terms of grants, some of the policy issues, Mr. Speaker, we do
not want to wait till the middle of April to discuss them. We want to debate them today.
I
would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the best use of the time of this House would
be for us to agree to this motion and go into the business of the people of
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this
motion. The issue in front of us is the
basic parliamentary debate in terms of what is good for the people of
Mr.
Speaker, for the last five years, we have gone into the Estimates debate after
we have seen the main booklet, after we have seen the whole budget, and that
has happened for the last five years.
Basically, what the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is simply
requesting is some respect for the parliamentary system, and I was reading the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), for whom I have a great deal of respect, and
he said that day that it is really unprecedented, that these things have never
happened. Why are we doing this now?
We
understand that the Minister of Finance is going to bring the budget down on
April 6, but why debate something when we do not know the whole part of the
budgetary process? It will be really
unfortunate if some of the organizations which we see today are getting cuts,
if some of these individuals are getting hurt.
It is a very tough economic time, and people want to know exactly what
we are going to do. It will be best if
we can debate the whole thing in a major way and try to understand where the
areas are where we can make a rational judgment, where we can say we have alternate
ways of delivering help and alternate ways of delivering some of the services.
Mr.
Speaker, as you know, we do not have a single department which does not affect
other departments. The whole process has
to be dealt with as a budgetary process.
Why set up something which we cannot continue to deliver next year? We are simply asking the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) to respect his own views.
The
Minister of Finance said that we are in a very tough economic time, and we want
to make certain changes. We want to be
responsible, and to be responsible we will assist him. We are simply asking him to wait for a week.
Let
the whole budget come down, and then we can debate all those things. The argument was given to us that we have not
debated all the departments. For the last
five years, we always missed some departments.
We have debated many areas within hours, and that was not very good, but
what we are simply asking today, we are simply asking you, through the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), to come to a conclusion and respect his own
views. I was reading the Minister of
Finance's comments, and he made it very clear that this thing has never
happened. Why do we want to do it now? That is not very right.
Mr.
Speaker, it is not a question of taking shots at the government. It is not a question of taking shots at the
official opposition. It is simply asking
all of us to do the right thing. The
right thing is to bring the budget and when the budget comes, then let us
debate.
Mr.
Speaker, if we read your comments, you did not specify that the budgetary
process has taken place in the past. It
has never happened. [interjection! No, it did not happen. Absolutely not. Mr. Speaker said that this kind of motion has
been presented and motions can be changed, but he never said that the debate
has taken place in the Estimates process, as far as I can recall.
Mr.
Speaker can correct me if I am wrong.
That was the interpretation we were given. We can make the argument on both sides of the
issue. The question here is that the
member for
Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about the common sense then. If common sense says, let us deal with our
budgetary process and let us deal with the process as a whole, why do you want
to change the process? We want you to
make the tough decision, and we want you to do what is best for the people of
We
want them to make the right choices. We
are not going to derail the whole process.
We are simply asking them to respect the parliamentary system.
An Honourable Member: You want to sit here in July; that is what you want.
Mr. Cheema: It is not a question of, we want to sit here
till July. We have sat in this House at
the end of July. That was in '88 and '89. We have sat many hours, we have broken many
records, and what has changed now?
Basically, things have changed.
Something is happening in
An Honourable Member: You asked us to explain why we were using
this approach, but you do not listen.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we are listening and the Minister
of Highways (Mr. Driedger) tried‑‑
An Honourable Member: No, you are not. If you listen to what was said and why, he
was asking you to accommodate a situation. That is what this is all about
instead of wasting this stupid time here.
* (2100)
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger) is getting a tad bit excited from his seat.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point?
Mr. Lamoureux: I would suggest that if the Minister of
Highways and Transportation wants to exercise his right to be able to speak on
this that he wait until the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) is done and then
take that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I do understand the Minister of Highways, who has
been a very polite person, has been very upset.
There has to be some reason. We
understand that reason is that the government has not been able to bring the
full agenda and they do not have anything to discuss so they are upset.
We
are simply asking the Minister of Highways and the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) to be accommodating and not to get very excited and not to get upset.
It
seems like the member for
An Honourable Member: I have never seen Albert mad in my life.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, that is true. I have never seen‑‑
An Honourable Member: Even when Glen Cummings got kicked out before
he was supposed to, I never saw him get mad.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, could you please ask the members
to let me speak? I do not think I can speak
when there is so much heckling going on.
Mr.
Speaker, what I would like to see is some kind of common sense approach to a
very complex issue in front of us; we are debating a very, very important thing
in terms of why we have to debate two parts of the whole budgetary
process. That is what we are
debating. Why not bring the whole budget
in? Why not bring the main Estimates
book in? Then we can debate all the
things in a very positive fashion. Well,
if they do not have their act together, why not have a recess for a week, come
back and do it again?
An Honourable Member: It has happened before.
Mr. Cheema: It has never happened in this House.
[interjection! Once we have the whole Estimates book.
Mr.
Speaker, it is very important. The
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has raised a very good point. Why are we wasting time? I want to tell you that we are not wasting
our time. We are simply protecting the
parliamentary debate and the right of all the members in this House.
[interjection!
Mr.
Speaker, anybody who can give me a good argument, I will agree with them, but I
think this issue is more important than short‑term arguments. We have been very co‑operative. We have been very assisting with the
government in many ways. We have been
asking them to make tough choices. We
are simply asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to consider many
things, which are very important. I have
heard the minister for the last five years, and I do have respect for him
because I understand we are in a very, very tough time, and we have to make
tough choices. To make those tough choices, the minister should bring the whole
budget in front of us where we can debate it in a very intelligent way. I do not think we can debate in a pick‑and‑choose
way and say we are going to debate this department today and that department
the next day. That is not right. That is not the way things work.
Mr.
Speaker, today we had the list, and lists can only have a meaning if we have
the whole process in front of us. When we
do not have the whole process, when we do not have the whole Estimates book,
how can we debate one or two departments? [interjection! The public impact, as
the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) is saying, is great. That is why we should be very, very careful. We should not be making choices unless we
know the full truth. I do not know what,
in terms of the process‑‑we do not know how much Health is going to
get. We do not know how much Education
is going to get. We do not know how much
the social services are going to get. We
do not know how much Highways and Transportation is going to get. We just want to know the whole process.
[interjection! I do not know whether they are going to get a minus two or minus
four. We are simply asking to have the
full process‑‑
Mr.
Speaker, it looks like my speech is getting some members yawning and some are
sleeping. It does not matter to me.
[interjection! If the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) wants to send
this speech to my constituents, please feel free to do it. It does not matter. I do work for them and they know it very
well, and I do not have to make speeches to prove that. I am there to work for them.
Mr.
Speaker, we are simply requesting that you ask the government to follow what
has been done in the past, to bring in the whole Estimates process and then
debate all the departments in a meaningful way, and that has not happened this
year. That is what the member for
Mr.
Speaker, we understand that the political spectrum can change very
quickly. Things can change, and if, as
legislative members, we do not perform our functions well, which we were asked
to do by the taxpayers of
Debating
one or two departments separately is not going to tell the agencies and the
other departments how this government is going to‑‑it is not an
ideal situation, but what is the rush? Why can we not have a recess for a week
and come back and debate the whole issue?
Mr.
Speaker, if we do not want to have a recess, then bring in the bills and talk
on those bills. If there were no bills,
then why did we come back on March 2? [interjection! It does not matter to me
what the opinion of the Agriculture minister is. What matters is what I think
in terms of what I am supposed to do here.
There
has to be respect in terms of the parliamentary debate, accountability and a
responsible opposition. The member for
The
important thing is that we should follow what we preach, and what we preach,
then we should practise that. That was
said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
That was on March 12. He made it very clear, this thing has never
happened before. [interjection! As the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) is saying, perfectly clear. He
tried to make it perfectly clear, so why does he not follow the same way as he
said?
Mr.
Speaker, we are asking, through you, through the government of
It
has been a tough time in terms of the many things happening in this province. Many workers are laid off. There are families that are going through a
rough time. There are going to be very
difficult decisions, so government should try to be as flexible as possible, to
make sure that at least a third party is on their side in terms of making tough
decisions.
If
they want to have that kind of co‑operation, then I think they should
respect the third party the same way they are respecting the official
opposition.
Mr.
Speaker, the difference of 2,100 votes between the two parties does not really
make much difference. Things can
change. Fifty votes per riding can
change the whole spectrum.
So
let us not discount the third party. I
think I am seeing that this has been the case for the last few days.
* (2110)
As
I said, 2,180 votes does not really tell them the third party has no status in
this House. That is not right. There are a lot of Manitobans who voted for
us‑‑138,000. There was only
a 2,180 vote difference between us and the NDP.
That is not more than 50 votes per riding. So let us not say that the third party‑‑muzzle
the third party and do not worry about them.
That has been the case.
That
is very unfortunate, because we would like to co‑operate with the
government. We know tough choices have
to be made. We will help them to make
tough choices, but to have an intelligent debate, an informative debate, you
need to have the full picture and, when we are missing the full picture, how
can we make a judgment call?
We
saw this morning some cuts, but those cuts, unless you see the whole picture,
as the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) said, if we are cutting in one area,
that does not mean you have other services also being cut, so why not have a
full picture and see which area, if there is any duplication of services, so we
can take away, but that can only be done if we have the full picture.
There
are many examples. There are many
services which are being duplicated and triplicated. That can be done in a very meaningful
way. That will only happen if we have
the full picture. At least we can study
the whole prospect and see what we can explain to our constituents. We can tell them that the government has to
make tough choices, and tough choices will only be appreciated if we are well
informed and we can inform others also.
We
will do our best. As far as I am
concerned, I will do what is best for the taxpayers of
It
is very, very difficult to be on the government's side as a third party. It is very, very politically risky, but if it
is the right thing to do, then we should do it.
We have seen in the Health debate that we have achieved a very, very
intelligent, intellectual debate which has helped not only all of us to
understand what should be done but, also, to help Manitobans who are going to
benefit in the long run.
We
are simply telling the government to do what they have done in the past.
As
I was going through some of the examples in terms of some of the cuts, for
example, the Independent Living Resource Centre, and the Home Care Self
Management Project, those things should be studied in connection with the other
departments.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not filibustering. I am
telling the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that what you have been telling
me, what I have heard about you, what I have seen about you for the last five years,
I am very disappointed that you have gone around the circle in terms of, you
should be asking for our help. We want
to help you in a very meaningful way.
As
the member for
I
just want to go back and again try to explain about why it is so important to
have the whole Estimates process, to deal with the process in the way we have
dealt with it in the last five years. As
the Minister of Finance is saying, we should not be wasting time, and we do not
want to waste time. That is why, Mr.
Speaker, it is so essential for them to bring the whole Estimates book and try
to have intelligent debate.
We
are simply asking the government of
It
has been the practice in the past, and I have seen it, we have gone many hours
in the Department of Health. We have
discussed at length. We have gone line
by line, and sometimes we have missed some parts but, at the end, we were
always able to make a rational approach because we had the full picture in
front of us.
Mr.
Speaker, we want to have the same flexibility we have had for the last five
years, and especially now at this time, during tough economic times, we should
have flexibility. That flexibility can
only be provided if we have the full picture, so that we can make the rational
decisions and help the government in terms of doing what is right for the
people of
There
are a number of areas of concern that are going to be brought forward once we
have the full budgetary process. As we
are seeing across this nation, all governments are having a tough time. Some governments, for example in
We
hope that the
I
think it is going to be very crucial because we do not want to see what the NDP
did. That is why we are in this mess,
the financial mismanagement which happened between '81, '82, '83, 84, 85, '86
and '87. During those years, they were
borrowing money, and they brought many problems. Now we are almost paying, as the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) was saying, about $450 million, only interest on the
debt. It is very dangerous. We have to make sure that we do the
responsible thing, and that can only be done if we deal with the process as we
have dealt with it in the past, and especially when we are having such a tough
economic time, then we should deal with that in a more meaningful way.
Mr.
Speaker, I am really astonished that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is
having more co‑operation with the official opposition, which is going to
scream and shout once the budget is going to come. I think we are going to be the party which is
going to be very careful. We are going
to examine the whole thing, and we are going to present some of the alternate
ways in terms of where some of the services, when they are having a duplication
of services, can be cut.
So
I think it will be to the advantage of this Minister of Finance to have the co‑operation
of us also, because we can be a very valuable asset. Simply, I am asking the Minister of Finance
to continue to provide the best possible way he has served Manitoba in the
past, to try to do his best and make sure that he is flexible, that he is going
to do what he has done in the past and try to bring in the Estimates process
after he brings the budget down. Then we
can discuss all aspects of the budgetary process.
Mr.
Speaker, as I recall, when we came in 1988, we went through the process, and it
was new for us, so we went through department by department, and I remember
very clearly the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) brought his capital budget at
the end. So we passed the whole budget
within 20 minutes, I guess, and that was the Minister of Health's answer to my
questions for at least one year. So we
do not want to do the same thing again.
That was not very smart.
The
government is asking us in terms of doing the same thing now. They are simply asking us to do something
which we do not know in terms of we do not have the full picture. They are simply asking us to debate something
where we do not know the full direction.
We do not know the full implications, how they are going to have an
impact on other departments, how is it going to impact on the services in a
given area, how they are going to have an impact on other areas of services, in
terms of whether Family Services is going to have an impact on health care or
if some of the health care services are going to have an impact on education or
if some of the services are going to have an impact on the total financial
picture.
* (2120)
I
think it would have been even much better for the government this time to be
more flexible and have the co‑operation from all two parties. But I think they have chosen just to go to
the NDP because they have the official opposition status, and as I said, a
difference of 2,280 votes does not really mean much in the parliamentary
system.
Things
can change very, very quickly, and it did change in 1988 and changed in
1990. It could change again in 1994, Mr.
Speaker.
I
think the government will be wise to take the advantage from the third party,
which has been very supportive of some of the steps this government has taken
and make sure that we are on this side to make tough decisions, to make tough
choices and to be responsible and try to do what is best for the taxpayers of
Manitoba.
I
remember during last session, when the member for
An Honourable Member: You have had him muzzled.
Mr. Cheema: No, I think the member for
Now
simply we are asking the government to do what is best for the taxpayers and to
bring the budgetary process, bring the budget, bring the whole book in front of
us, and we can have an intelligent debate.
I see many ministers are shaking their head. They are not happy with my time, but I think
I will be dishonest to myself if I do not speak on this, because I feel very
strongly about the parliamentary system.
I
feel very strongly that we should respect our parliamentary debate and make
sure that we abide by the laws, abide by the moral and ethical duties of the
parliamentary debate. I think that has
not been happening as of last Friday in some aspects. I think government really got themselves into
trouble because Mr. Mulroney resigned and they did not have the budget. Now they have this problem of how much money
they are going to get. It is very tough,
because the federal government has not treated
They
have taken much money out, and now they are asking $200 million back from this
government. It is going to be very
tough, because they have to try to provide essential services. It is going to be next to impossible to try
to provide what was even provided last year or some miracle is going to
happen. We know that the revenues are
down. We all know what the federal
government has done to this province, but I think ultimately it is going to be
very tough for the government to do as good as they did in 1991, '90 and
'89. It is going to be tough.
That
is why it is so important for them to have a good start, but I think this was a
bad start on their part. I think the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) will be wise to sit down with the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and try to resolve this issue and try to win his
sympathy in terms of what is good for the taxpayers of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker,
because it seems that for the last few days, the member for Inkster has been
shut down and not been consulted, as far as he has told us, and I trust him, so
we are simply requesting the Minister of Finance to do what is best for the
taxpayers of Manitoba and come up with a budget which is responsible and also
which is not going to put the taxpayers of Manitoba into a problem in the years
to come.
Mr.
Speaker, we are seeing the problems created by the previous
administration. The problem is very
clear. There is a lot of debt and the
interest on that debt is almost $450 million.
That could probably settle many of the hospital needs and many of the
social services needs and many of the education needs. That is why it is so crucial for them to make
right decisions and be bold and be creative, and I sincerely hope they will.
Mr.
Speaker, many Manitobans believe that we need a government which is going to be
tough, which is going to have a clear thinking process, a government which is
going to be true to their word and is not going to be derailed by public
opinion for short‑term gain, and we want to see that. I sincerely hope that the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) and Finance minister and other ministers will do that.
Mr.
Speaker, can you tell me, how much time do I have? Five minutes.
It seems like I have been speaking for 35 minutes. That will be the
first opportunity I have spoken for 35 minutes on any other subject other than
health care, so I will end by saying, let us respect the parliamentary debate,
let us respect all the parties in this House and let us respect the process
which has been set in the past.
That
process is to have the budget first and then have all the Estimates process as
a whole brought forward and make sure that we have all the departments so that
we can see which department is getting cuts or we can see where there is a
duplication of services, so we can see which area we can get away, which area
we can make some choices. It is the time
to make right choices, and I think we should do that, and to do that job
effectively we should follow what the Minster of Finance said in terms of making
rational decisions. In my view you cannot
make a rational decision if you do not have the full picture. How can you make
an intelligent decision if you do not have the full picture? How can you do your job as a member of the
Assembly if you do not get the respect of this House?
Thank
you.
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on
this issue this evening. This issue that
we are debating here is a matter of principle, and it also relates not just to
principles that are important to Manitobans, but principles that are important
to taxpayers, principles that should be important to all members of this
Legislature. What we are talking about
is how this government runs its affairs and how we as an opposition party can
continue to be a responsible, resourceful opposition.
* (2130)
Mr.
Speaker, we have already agreed to compromise with this government in regard to
the budget that we know we will not see until April 6. We are quite prepared for this government to
table their main Estimates so that at least we have an opportunity to review
the spending Estimates of the 26 departments.
We are prepared to do that and yet not have the revenue side of the
equation. We are prepared to at least know
what the spending side is, and that is a compromise. That is a compromise when you are talking
about reasonable management decisions, when you are talking about how do you
run an organization, when you are talking about how do you run a business.
Even
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), the official opposition, on Friday agreed
that we on this side of the House had a very valid point in terms of the issue
that our House leader, the member for
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
How does one provide reasonable opposition? How does one be reasonable in the monitoring
of government spending, of asking questions, of supporting the government if it
has to make difficult decisions? How
does one provide that responsible opposition when one only has a very small
piece of the pie and only has the knowledge of one very small piece of the
spending and does not have an overall picture?
How does one provide that responsible opposition, Madam Deputy Speaker?
I
would suggest to you that this government which likes to pride itself on the
fact that they know how to manage‑‑and I use that term loosely‑‑they
believe that they are good at managing business. They believe that they are good at running
organizations. Are they going to stand
here this evening? Are they going to
tell us in this House, are they going to tell Manitobans, are they going to
tell taxpayers that if there is a huge corporation, whether it is IBM or Petro‑Canada
or General Motors, that when the board of directors sit down and look at what
the budget is going to be for the year and what their priorities are going to
be for spending, that they are only going to look at one division of their
operation and take that and decide on how they are going to make their overall
decisions?
Surely,
Madam Deputy Speaker, they are not going to stand here this evening and tell us
that that is how organizations, and that is how businesses, and that is how
nonprofit organizations are supposed to make their decisions, that they take
one small piece of the budget and in isolation of all of the rest suggest that
this is how we are making our decisions.
That is totally, totally irresponsible, and this government knows
better.
I
suggest that in fact this government is quite well aware of the principle that
we are promoting here, and it is fully aware of it, but the overall concern as
we listen to members on the opposite side of the House this evening seems to
be, do we want to sit here in July? What
does a month of the year have to do with the business of running the government
in
What
has the month of the year got to do with the decisions that we make in this
Chamber here this evening and decisions that we make in the coming days? I find it very interesting, and I really question
whether in fact any of these cabinet ministers and some of their backbenchers
as well have ever picked up a book on how to run an organization, know anything
about management principles. Where is
the total quality management that this government is purporting and likes to
talk about and likes to give information to their civil servants about? Where is that concept of what strategic
planning is all about? Where is that information? Where is the framework? Where is the main budget?
If
they really do not have that information, then why do we not recess, let the
members of the Legislative Assembly spend time out in their constituencies
doing the work that they need to do?
That is what we are required to do.
Let us get away from the old style of doing politics. Let us get away with being in the House and
not doing important work, because that does happen from time to time, Madam
Deputy Speaker. [interjection!
Well,
I cannot understand how the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Cummings) can
stand here this evening and talk about, let us get on with it. How can he suggest that we should take the
Department of Family Services and the Department of Highways and Transportation
and discuss serious decisions that affect the everyday lives of individuals, of
children, of parents, in this province, and we would do that in isolation of
the other departments of where the spending is going to be? How are we to know what the philosophy is of
this government, what the goals are of this government, what the planning is of
this government? How are we to know that when we only have two
departments? I do not understand that.
In
fact, I would suggest that even the official opposition agrees that we have a
point because they feel it is very valid. Only the difference is, when the
official opposition stands in this House they do not really care what the
overall framework or plan is because all they do is rant and rave and say cut,
cut, cut, slash, slash, slash. So it is
not as important to them. We are here as
a third party to provide responsible opposition to the government, and we are
here to support the government if in fact they have to make some tough
decisions. We are here to support them
if that is the case, but we want to know what the overall spending plan is of
this government. We want to know what
their priorities are. We want to know
where they have decided to make changes.
We do not want to receive the information hit and miss in a press
release here, a press release there. Two
departments tabled in this House and yet we have no understanding of the
overall plan.
I
do not understand how this government can purport to talk about total quality
management, can talk about management by objectives and result, can talk about
every basic management theory which has been recognized within governments
since about 1954, can talk about this‑‑[interjection! Well, you
know, I really suggest that the comments that are coming across the way, that
they do not understand what total quality management is and they do not
understand the principle of how a department should run, how an overall
government should run. They do not
understand that very basic principle.
I
have talked to members in my constituency.
I have talked to individuals in the last few days in the community, and
I have said to them, this is what the government wants to do. They are going to table Estimates of two
departments‑‑
An Honourable Member: Then you did know.
Ms. Gray: Of course we knew on Friday. They want to table Estimates of a couple of departments
and they want us to discuss it in a reasonable logical way without having the
total picture. I have not found one person who has felt that that is even a
reasonable, responsible approach‑‑not one individual, and these
people are not even political people, they are apolitical. They are taxpayers in the community. There is no one I have talked to who feels
that is a reasonable approach, and even this government knows it is not a
reasonable approach. Even this
government knows that.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I have talked to a number of individuals in the last four days,
many of whom were not Liberals. I have
talked to individuals who work in the media who are not Liberals. I have talked to my neighbours, who are not
necessarily Liberals. I have talked to
civil servants, and this may surprise the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), but
even those civil servants, even they are not all Liberals.
So,
I have talked to a number of individuals who feel that this is an irresponsible
approach on the part of the government. Why are we here if we do not have the
entire budget picture? Why are we
here? What is preventing this government
from bringing down the budget, from showing us what is in the departmental
spending, showing what is on the revenue side, if there is anything other than
gambling revenues?
* (2140)
What
is this government prepared to do? Are
they prepared to table every department piece by piece and expect us to provide
reasonable, responsible opposition? I
know that the Minister of Health, who sits in his chair this evening, knows
full well that is not a responsible way to go about organizing and leading a
government. I know he knows better. I am quite aware that he knows better about
that, and the fact that we may be in here discussing Estimates until July, I do
not understand why the month of the year is relevant to this discussion, other
than some ministers may want to be on vacation in July. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am quite
prepared to work during the month of July. [interjection!
Well,
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) suggests that we
on this side of the House as nonministers do not have any responsibility and
that, in fact, we walk around with nothing to do. Well, I think every member on this side of
the House, the official opposition and the third party should take exception to
those comments because we work very hard out in our constituencies and also
with people across the province in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, when we received a press release today we were told of a number
of cuts in a number of organizations who provide services in the province of
Manitoba. Some of them were foster
parents association. Other of the
agencies were the Committee on Unplanned Pregnancy, and I know when the
minister rose in this House today in Question Period, he talked about, well,
his staff could provide some of those services.
Well, my first thought was that his staff, particularly his nursing
staff, is so busy doing early discharges and providing services to young
mothers they do not have time oftentimes to deal with the prevention. In fact, that is correct because that is what
they have said to me.
Another
area that we heard about cuts in was services to aboriginal organizations.
[interjection! Well, you know, the minister from his seat has just suggested
these are not cuts and they are funding reallocations. The minister has just made my very point
because, if in fact they are funding reallocations, if that is what they are,
then we need to see the total budget so we know that the money has been
reallocated, but we do not have the total budget. We have no idea that it is a reallocation, so
why do you not present the budget? Let
us know so that we know it is a reallocation, and we can provide more
responsible opposition.
Point of Order
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship): I guess, as we listen to the comments from the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), it almost sounds to me like in fact if she had the
budget before her today she would be voting in support of it. I would like her to clarify that.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Ms. Gray: I would say that was a wild, wild
interpretation of what my comments were but, be that as it may, I go back to
the point that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) just raised about
suggesting that the press releases that came out that talked about the dollars
of which there were lesser amounts of dollars going to these organizations were
in fact not cut, but they were funding reallocations.
As
I suggest to all members of this House, that makes our very point, because if
in fact those dollars which are now not going to those organizations, whether
it is the foster parents association, whether it is friendship centres, whether
it is the Flin Flon‑Creighton Crisis Centre, whether it is the
Association for Community Lving, whether it is the Manitoba Teachers' Society,
whatever that organization is, if in fact those dollars are not going there,
then where are they going?
If
they have been reallocated, as the Minister of Health suggested, where are they
being reallocated? The Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) is saying, they are not being
spent. Well, what is it? Are they not being spent or is it being
reallocated? What is the story?
Let
us know. We want to know. Manitobans out there want to know. Those organizations want to know that if they
are receiving fewer dollars, what is the reason behind it? Have they been given an explanation.
An Honourable Member: There is no money.
Ms. Gray: Well, we hear the question‑‑there
is no money. If there is no money, why
are the deputy ministers getting a 23 percent increase? Why do the deputy ministers get to go to
Civil Service courses that are paid for when no one else gets to? Why is it that there are all these dollars
going to Community Places? Why is it
that monies and dollars‑‑excuse me for pausing, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am just waiting for the din to not be there.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, my comment is about the Community Places grants. What are the priorities of this
government? I mean, we have seen where
the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) has given money out in Virden, Manitoba, lovely
community, and I have heard we get calls from people out in Virden saying, if the budget is going to be very
tough, if we are in recessionary times and we have to make tough decisions
about where we spend our money, if we have to choose between children in the
classroom or counsellors for substance abuse versus a roof for a curling rink,
what is the choice of the government going to be?
It
is a very good question that constituents are raising. It is not constituents in my constituency of
Crescentwood. It is people throughout
How
does Family Services fit in relation to where spending is in the Department of
Education or the Department of Health or the Department of Justice? What is the relationship? Are we still going to have a Department of
Government Services? Is it going to
exist when the budget comes down on April 6?
These are questions that civil servants, that Manitobans, that teachers,
that health care professionals, that farmers‑‑these are questions
that people want to know the answers to.
I
would also ask, what is the revenue side of the equation? What kind of revenues
do we have coming into the province? We
have already heard that some ministers might even be voting against their own budget
because the deficit is too high. Is that
the case?
If
they know the facts‑‑and the ministers across keep saying as they
shout across the room, there is no money, there is no money, we do not have the
money, it is not being spent. Then they
know the facts, so let us present them here in the House.
Let
us present them here in the House so that we all have an opportunity‑‑[interjection!
We all want an opportunity to discuss the budget. We all want an opportunity to see where the
dollars, scarce as they may be, are being spent. What about the minister responsible for
culture and heritage? What about
services and programs for women in this province? Are there going to be cuts across the
board? If that is the case, we want to
know what priorities this government has.
We cannot determine and logically and responsibly discuss the priorities
of this government unless we see the entire financial picture.
* (2150)
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, I would like this government and this cabinet to perhaps
go back into their meetings and perhaps review their total quality management,
the program that they are trying to promote throughout government, and actually
examine if in fact they are following their own guidelines and their own rules.
As
I said, they surely must know‑‑and a number of the cabinet
ministers are farmers. They run
businesses. They know what it is like to
have an operation that has many divisions of that operation, whether it is your
household budget, whether it is capital purchases that you are making.
Whatever
the various division sections are, are they going to sit here tonight and
suggest to us and suggest to business people and farmers and people in this
province that they make decisions when they only know what one part of their
budget is going to be, so that they look at their household budget for the year
and say, oh well, it looks like we are going to have to cut maybe 3 percent
there, although I have no idea what some of the revenue is coming in, or I do
not know in fact how much income tax it is I am going to have to pay, but I am
going to make my decisions as to what I am going to do for the next year based
on this one household budget?
That
is what this government is asking us to do tonight. That is what they are
suggesting to us when they table two small departments and do not give us the
entire picture, Mr. Speaker. It is irresponsible. It is definitely irresponsible, and nobody
would run a business like that, no one.
Anyone
I talk to suggests that is not the way a responsible government acts. We have attempted to provide responsible and
reasonable opposition in this House. We
know that it is difficult times. We know
these are recessionary times. We know
that there may have to be changes in some of the allocations of the
dollars. We know that perhaps Community
Places grants, perhaps there have to be changes. We have seen already some lowering of dollars
for some of these organizations and groups. I do not necessarily agree with how
that was done. Why the Flin Flon‑Creighton
Crisis Centre gets their funding cut when we still have crisis centres being
funded in
I
am not quite sure why we cut funding to the Association for Community
Living. I am not sure why we have cut
funding to the foster parents association.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would like to remind the honourable member for Crescentwood that the
question before the House is that this House at this sitting would resolve
itself into Committee of Supply. That is
the question before the House. I would
ask the member for Crescentwood to keep her remarks relevant to said question.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are debating the motion of whether
this government should move into Supply, and as I have been speaking about, the
issue has to be what is the reason and what is the rationale behind this
motion? As I suggested in the very
beginning when I rose to speak on this issue, we have to look at the principle
behind why the government has put this motion on the floor. I would suggest to you that in fact the
reason for their doing this is expediency.
They
want to move into discussion of Estimates because they know that the members
who are in the official opposition are only going to rant and rave about all
the cuts, and they know that they are going to go ahead and do what they are
going to do anyway in regard to how they spend in the departments. They forget that the third party in this House
has attempted to provide reasonable, responsible opposition. So when we move in to the Committee of Supply
we want to be armed with the facts, the facts that this government has at their
disposal, because I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that they know exactly what the
spending Estimates are going to be for the 26 departments. If they do not, then they should not have
already been making decisions on two departments, Family Services and Highways
and Transportation and decisions on Agriculture without having the entire
picture.
I
would hope that this government knows what the revenue side of the equation
is. I would hope that this government
has made the decisions on where their capital expenditures are going to be,
because surely they cannot resolve into the Committee of Supply and expect us
to discuss reasonably and logically the spending in those particular
departments unless they know the entire picture and then, therefore, we should
know the entire picture.
It
is a basic, fundamental principle based on any kind of management principles
that you would have within an organization, whether that organization is
nonprofit, whether it is a big business or whether it is government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, government is the
organization, the vehicle in which they should be providing leadership on what
is responsible and how one should proceed in an orderly manner. They should be able to present to us what
their strategic plan is for the next year, for the next three years, and for
the next five years. They should be able
to tell this side of the House what their spending priorities are.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) earlier referred to reallocation
of funds. If in fact we are going to
dissolve into Committee of Supply, and a number of these departments, as they
have presented Family Services, have had cuts to some of their organizations,
and they are not cuts, they are, as the Minister of Health suggests,
reallocation, we need to know the context within which those decisions were
made.
Where
has that money been reallocated to? If
it has not been reallocated into other areas within that one Department of
Family Services or Highways, we need to see those other 24 departments to know
where that money is going to be reallocated to.
We need to know that so that in fact we can represent the people of our
constituencies better, so that in fact we can represent the people in
There
is a realization out there, Mr. Speaker, that in fact spending is not endless,
that there has to be limits, and that we are going to have to be innovative and
creative in terms of how we spend the limited dollars that there are. In order for us to communicate with our
constituents about what this government's plans are, what their priorities are,
we need to have the entire picture. We
cannot go into the Committee of Supply and sit with the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) and go
through the spending Estimates line by line without an overall picture.
Obviously,
the members of the official opposition are prepared to do that, because, as I
suggest‑‑I mean, having lived through the regime of the NDP for 10
years as a civil servant, I understand some of their thinking. I do not agree with their thinking, Mr.
Speaker, but I do understand it, that their ideas and plans may be good, but
their implementation leaves much to be desired, and that in fact in speaking
with the idea of the Family Services which is one of the Estimates that is
being presented in this House, I remember in the Department of Family Services
when we had the Welcome Home program, that all the managers were told out in
the regions, oh, spend whatever you need to spend, the important thing is to
move people out of the institution. Do
not worry about the dollars.
Mr.
Speaker, that is irresponsible. I would
hope that this government would think that those kinds of decisions were
irresponsible and that in fact if we were to see the entire 26 departments, the
entire budget as it is being presented, that in fact we would know if this
government is being responsible as opposed to being irresponsible like their
predecessors were, where their line was spend, spend, spend. Do not worry about the cost to Manitobans. Let us just do what we want to do.
I
would hope that this government is not irresponsible. I would hope that this government and its
cabinet are prepared to present the spending Estimates of the 26
departments. I know we are not going to
see the revenue side, Mr. Speaker, and we are prepared already to compromise on
that one issue. It would be much better
if we were able‑‑
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) will have 10 minutes remaining.
The
hour being 10 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30
p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).