Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that under Rule 27.(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance namely the recently released rate application before the CRTC for a series of major increases in base rates which will result in rate shock for residential phone service in Manitoba and is contrary to what was promised by the provincial government last year when MTS was sold.
Motion presented.
* (1520)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Thompson, I believe I should remind all honourable members that under Rule 27.(2) the movers of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and--one moment.
Order, please. I have got to inform the honourable member that the motion that he just moved before the House is not the same as the motion that was tabled with the Clerk. I would have to ask leave for the honourable member's motion that was tabled, the original one, to be moved in the House. Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and--
Some Honourable Members: No leave.
Mr. Ashton: Leave was given. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) maybe was not paying attention at the time.
An Honourable Member: No, I said, no leave.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I had requested whether there was leave or not. Okay. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent public importance.
I move that under Rule 27.(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the recently released rate request of MTS NetCom to the CRTC for a series of major increases in phone rates which will create rate shock for residential phone service in Manitoba and is contrary to what was promised by the provincial government last year when MTS was sold.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that under Rule 27 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the recently released rate request of MTS NetCom to the CRTC for a series of major increases in the base rates which will create rate shock for residential phone services in Manitoba and is contrary to what was promised by the provincial government last year when MTS was sold.
Before recognizing the honourable member for Thompson, I believe I should remind all honourable members that, under Rule 27.(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more that five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.
As stated in Beauchesne, Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not the subject matter of the motion in their remarks. Members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is an urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure the public interest will not suffer.
Mr. Ashton: I realize that the Premier may be somewhat disappointed that I am entitled and indeed have followed the rules in putting this matter of urgent public importance before this House, but I say to this Premier, he will never silence us in the opposition when it comes to speaking on behalf of the people of Manitoba. Why, indeed, did we move this matter? I want to note, by the way, that I realize that this exactly has not got much of a surprise factor. We intended to move this matter of urgent public importance yesterday. I want to note that, because a similar resolution was filed yesterday. The reason we filed it was because this was the first opportunity after we had the opportunity to look at the CRTC application filed by MTS NetCom, which shows clearly that Manitobans could be faced with not only a $3 increase if the application is approved, but they need to find another $20 million that could result in another $4 a month on average, in fact, even more in many rural areas.
We are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rate shock is a reality with MTS in private hands. We were right. Ross Nugent was right. The people of Manitoba were right. We are going to see dramatically increased phone rates, and it is time for this Legislature and this government to take a position on that critical issue.
I find it appropriate that we have the chance to deal with the urgency of this today, because we have just learned today just how unable this government is to provide information and participation on this issue. Is there any surprise that the Premier does not want to intervene at MTS NetCom? I wonder what one of the major corporate sponsors of their fundraising dinner yesterday, MTS, would say about the Premier going to the CRTC and suggesting they get a slightly lower rate of return, maybe not those huge rate increases. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have never seen such clear evidence of kickbacks, political kickbacks, than I have seen with this government, which raises funds from MTS when it is supposed to be defending Manitobans and defending them by saying no to those major rate increases.
(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I say to members opposite, the Premier had the nerve to stand up and say, well, people bought tables and tickets. You know, we have to deal with this matter urgently, because one of the major sponsors is Wellington West. I want the members opposite to have the opportunity to debate how Wellington West Capital, one of the three major sponsors, lobbied to join the syndicate selling off MTS, and according to the Financial Post, at Manitoba's insistence, two Winnipeg-based boutiques were included for political optics: Wellington West Capital, which was one of the major dinner sponsors--and, guess which the other one was, Mr. Acting Speaker?--Bieber Securities. I have here this sponsor--I say, by the way, I find it shameful that they would use the name and use the reputation of one of the most respected politicians in Manitoba history to bag money from the people who benefited from the sale of MTS, because Bieber is on here as well. I say to them if they want to have a dinner in honour of Duff Roblin, raise money for flood relief. Do not raise it for the PC bagmen.
You know, I do not know what is more offensive. Getting kickbacks by taking money from brokers that just benefit at our expense by a policy that was made by a government that had no support from the people of Manitoba, none; 78 percent of rural Manitobans said no. Two-thirds of Manitobans said no to the sale of MTS. What is more offensive, is it that, or the fact that six months after MTS was sold off, we have MTS seeking a huge increase in rates and now donating money as a major corporate sponsor to the PCs?
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
I want to go further and suggest one of the reasons we have to deal with this urgently is I want to find out what the role was of the board appointees from the government, many of whom are major contributors themselves to the Conservative Party. I wonder if they had a chance to vote on this, because I believe then you have a direct tie-in between the government of the day and financing of a political party in a way that is one of the most odious forms of fundraising I have ever seen in this province, to go and benefit the brokers in November, to add them through political interference and then collect money from them six months later and to sell off our phone company and then have the ethical and moral judgment, to my mind, of even the people at MTS now, this private company.
Do they not understand what it is going to say to the seniors and others who may lose their phones? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have never seen a government sunk so low in terms of morality and ethics. That is why we need an urgent opportunity to debate. While on the one hand they are dramatically increasing rates over at MTS and why this government will not say anything that will go against the interests of their corporate friends, they want to line their corporate friends' pocket. We all know that. That is why we need to debate it now.
* (1530)
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, the official opposition brings forward a motion for debate on what they call an urgent and pressing matter, warranting the setting aside of the business of the House, when in his opening remarks, perhaps even in the motion itself, the honourable member refers to a CRTC application respecting rates for the Manitoba Telecom system. It was not urgent when honourable members, some of whom sit on the benches opposite, sat around in the backrooms and decided what phone bills, how they should be increased. It was not a matter of a requirement for any debate in the House at that time. It was not a matter of any requirement that they wanted, that they recognized for a debate in this House when it came to unconscionable increases to our Manitoba public auto insurance rates.
So somehow there is a sense here that there is a rule for members of the New Democratic Party and a different rule for other governments and other people in Manitoba. It smacks just of a little bit of hypocrisy here today that this application for a motion of urgent and pressing importance should come in front of us today. Now, I am sure the honourable member has met the appropriate requirements for filing notice with the Speaker's office, and I have no evidence to suggest that has not been done. But this is about whether there ought to be a debate. This little five-minute time we have now is to discuss whether there ought to be a debate about this, not the time for the debate itself but whether this is an urgent enough matter that there be a debate.
It strikes me as somewhat strange coming from honourable members in the New Democratic Party that a proposed increase in rates would be a matter urgent enough to require a debate in this House, when they themselves sat in the backrooms and made decisions about the prices that Manitobans should have to pay for their phone bills or for their Autopac rates. So here, again, I think what we have is an application on the part of the honourable member for an opportunity to make their points again and again and again. Whether they have this opportunity this afternoon or not, which I suggest they will not, because they simply do not meet the requirements for the debate, they will have ample opportunities to bring to the public's attention the things that bother them about the Manitoba Telecom system and whatever it is that bothers them about the government which they oppose in this place.
So, with due respect to the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who, no one would question his passion for these issues, and I certainly do not, and his eloquence in bringing forward these matters is not something that I question either, but the appropriateness of setting aside the business of this place on this particular matter at this particular time, simply the case for that has not been made.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, could I request leave to speak to this?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to put his remarks on the record? [agreed]
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, very briefly I listened closely to what the member for Thompson was saying. I would buy into the argument that the member for Thompson has put forward in terms of the need to have some sort of debate on this particular issue.
There was a cautionary note that came to mind in terms of any potential vote on this. The member for Thompson made reference to board members being MLAs, if in fact they would, not government-appointed MLAs if you like, or individuals appointed by the government in terms of conflicts of interest, if in fact it comes down to a vote, but in principle I do not have any problems supporting the motion that is brought forward with respect to the member for Thompson.
An Honourable Member: Mr. Deputy Speaker, a matter of clarification just on the--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, on a point of order?
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just to clarify that the government appointed all of the members of Manitoba Telecom under the Manitoba Telecom act. The board of directors was entirely appointed by the government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order.
I wish to inform the House that the notice requirement for this matter was met. According to Manitoba practice and Beauchesne, a Speaker's role, when a matter of urgent public importance is put forward, is to determine whether the matter is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention and to judge whether the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest demands that discussions take place immediately.
While the honourable member for Thompson brings forward an important matter, it is my judgment that the public interest will not be harmed if the debate of this matter does not take place today.
Mr. Ashton: It is with regret I challenge the ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton: On division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On division.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, would move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that under Rule 27.(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee to meet and provide extra funding for the Ombudsman's office so that they can adequately carry out the duties assigned to them by this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the honourable member for Inkster, I believe I should remind all members that, under Rule 27.(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.
As stated in Beauchesne Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is an urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would argue that the public interest would be best served by debating this particular issue today. Earlier in Question Period, once again, I have asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province to indicate what is happening with these three independent offices. I have had opportunity to have some discussions through the Ombudsman's office and one of the other offices where there was a concern expressed in terms of the lack of any sort of direction coming from within the government.
I look at the provincial Ombudsman's office, and within that office we see more responsibilities that are being delegated, therefore they do need additional resources. Even the Premier in Question Period yesterday acknowledged that he would like to be able to give them more resources.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have the Provincial Auditor's office, whether it is staffing complements or what they are going to be doing with staffing years to the delaying of new initiatives, again because of our collective inability to address the issue. We have Elections Manitoba which has a responsibility of looking into boundary distribution amongst other things, and all three of these offices are, in fact, independent.
* (1540)
There are no other times or opportunities for us to be able to debate this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the sense that budget concurrence, the Estimates, is over. There is no relative bill before the House in which we could allow for a debate to occur. I myself, as other members, have used our grievance. I would suggest to you that the public's interest would be best served because these are, for all intents and purposes, independent offices of this Chamber, and it is the responsibility of this Chamber to ensure that those offices, indeed, have the resources that are necessary that would allow them to function in a proper fashion.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) in his answers to questions has acknowledged the Ombudsman's office, in particular, does not have the resources, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Well, that in itself raises the concern in terms of, well, what resources is the government prepared to give? If, in fact, the government was saying, well, look, until LAMC meets, we are prepared to allow for this type of an increase to take this into account, and as long as you are not decreasing the lines it can be reviewed whenever LAMC does meet, because we have not had any indication in terms of when it is going to be meeting, and that causes a great deal of concern for the collective good of the independent offices and the collective good of this Chamber.
We rely heavily on the resources from all three of those offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we recognize their importance and the contribution that they make in their independent way. We are not saying that the Premier should ride roughshod over these offices. What we are saying is that the Premier at the very least needs to try to resolve this issue. He himself needs to get involved with the representatives from this Chamber, and failing that, at least allow for additional resources to go direct to these three independent offices and let LAMC, whenever it does meet, resolve it.
It is indeed in the best interests of the public that these three independent offices and their need for additional resources get addressed, and they should be addressed today because we do not know if in fact we could be out of here--the session could be concluded today; it could be concluded as early as tomorrow. We cannot leave these three independent offices hanging when in fact there is a good chance, I would say a better than 60 percent, 70 percent chance, that it will not be resolved before we rise or before we go into the summer. That is the reason why I believe that it is important that we have that debate today in order that all parties can get on the record in supporting the additional resources to these three independent offices that are in fact warranted.
With those few words, I trust that we will be able to have an emergency debate today to resolve it.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do believe that it will take the will of the House and leave because our Rule 27.(5)(a) indicates that not more than one such motion, a matter of urgent public importance, may be made at the same sitting. We just dealt with a matter of urgent public importance before, and I know it is longstanding practice in this House in terms of that particular rule. But we are open in terms of that, in terms of the will of the House.
Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, and I can appreciate the sensitivity from the member for Thompson. I know during the minority days it was only accepted that there would be one emergency debate during the day. At least that is an indication I was given. After, I can say from experience that it was allowed, and I did ask both the former Speaker and Clerk's staff with respect to the ability to have a second MUPI, and the response I was given back then was yes. In fact, I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you look, you will find at least on one occasion, I believe, where we did have two MUPIs, just to clarify that particular rule.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.
Mr. Ashton: The same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The rules are clear. We cannot follow the rules by leave. I was just going to deal with that in my comments, and I am wondering if you wanted to perhaps reserve a ruling on this until after the comments are made, or if you wish to make a ruling at this point in time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will rule on the point of order after the comments have been made. The honourable member for Thompson, to conclude his remarks.
Mr. Ashton: I want to indicate that we believe it is technically not in order, but we are willing to be accommodating. There are some important issues that need to be debated. I am not sure this is the forum to debate LAMC issues. In fact, I would suggest it is not the best forum whatsoever in this House. I believe there are other ways of dealing with issues before LAMC in terms of its role as a committee. Our position, in terms of the nonpolitical offices, is clear, and I am hoping at some point in time, if we all appear to have some agreement on providing additional resources that the independent offices need, and I point in particular to the privacy issue requiring an additional role for the Ombudsman, longstanding requests from the Auditor's office, and in fact that we have written to the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) indicating our own support for the proposals put forward prior to Christmas as part of the budget process.
We are prepared to allow leave on this. Of course, it is subject then to the government as well on the clear understanding that technically it is not in order. But I would also add a caution that I do believe that some of these issues would be better dealt in the ordinary course of events through discussions between the various parties and without going any further than saying there have been some discussions. I even note that I think that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) commented on that today in comparison to yesterday where, perhaps, he may not have been aware of that fact, but indeed an LAMC meeting was cancelled by mutual agreement while discussions continue, and I want that put on the record. That was by mutual agreement, and our intent is to continue those discussions.
So I am not sure if there is really much we can add right now that would be useful in a public forum, but I was certainly prepared to deal with that. If there is a will of the House, we are prepared to discuss those applications by leave.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has brought this matter forward today, because it is indeed an important matter. Again, whatever technical problems there might be, I was engaged in something else a moment ago when that came up, so I am not sure where we stand on the legality or the technical appropriateness of the motion being in front of us, nor indeed do I know if the honourable member provided the appropriate notice. It may be that Your Honour set that out and let us know about that. I am assuming that happened.
But the point is some of the things that have been said here by the opposition House leader are indeed true. We have had a little difficulty over the last few months getting the Legislative Assembly Management Commission to function in its normal way, but I do not think we can agree that the ordinary business of the people of Manitoba needs to be set aside today for the purpose of a debate about the LAMC. I do believe that if there are some good intentions and some good will, which I believe there to be, we will indeed, through some mechanism yet to be determined, be able to achieve the ends that we need to, to ensure that the Ombudsman's office, the Office of the Provincial Auditor, indeed the office of the Clerk of the Legislature and the office of Elections Manitoba and all the other matters that need to be dealt with through the LAMC, it is true, will indeed in due course be dealt with in such a way that the people of Manitoba will not be inconvenienced or in any way harmed because of any delay in LAMC meetings.
* (1550)
Remember we are relatively early in the fiscal year still and we are aware of the requirements of these various agencies. We are aware of requirements of the various caucuses in this House. We are not unmindful at all of those matters, and it is with that in my mind that as government House leader I am trying to bring about amicable solutions to some of these problems that do from time to time surface in a Legislative Assembly. So, while I respectfully agree that the matter raised by the honourable member for Inkster is indeed one of considerable importance, I think that there are options available to us to resolve the difficulties enunciated in his comments this afternoon. So, on that basis, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not able to support setting aside the ordinary business.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Yes, I just want to add a very short comment. I have been informed by more senior members here that, indeed, during the times of the minority government, more than one MUPI was not allowed, but in fact precedent has been set in that more than one MUPI has been brought forward. So I just wanted to advise--