Manitoba Hansard — 18 May 1982 (Sitting 57B, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-57b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 Time - 8:00 p.m. BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'

d) POINT OF PRIVIL EGE (Cont'

d) MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): The Hon ourable Memb er for Conc ordia. MR. PETER FOX (Concordia): Thank you, Mr. Speaker . It grie ves me that I have to address myself to this question here in this Chamb er. I had thought that we would strive to mai ntain the decorum, in fact, to im prove it with the new group of MLAs but I find that the ones who are probably abusing the system more than anyone else are the ones who have already had some time in here and who should kn ow better. No w, I want to ind icate to you, Mr.

Speaker, that I believe that this motion really should not have come to a debate. A matter of privi lege is some thing of a very serious natu re. I have always un derstood that a matter of privi lege only arose in respect to a memb er when he was pr evented from doing his dutie s as a parliament arian. Secondly, that a matter of privile ge in respect to the Ho use only arose when the Hous e could not carry on with its dutie s as it deemed it should. This was not the case in this in stance.

In this in stance, a memb er raised a question that he called privile ge in respect to a matter which both sides have admon ished each other conti nually and which are not in the rules but we have become accustomed to saying that we will not discuss the absence or presence of a mem ber. Now, both sides have adhered to this and all of a sudden we want to make a matter of privi lege out of it. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to any matter going before the Rules Comm ittee, but I do object to the rules being ab used by memb ers because they want to gain some brownie points.

Now, the mem bers that have made this issue in to a debate are the one s who are really losing on the gr ounds that the Bud get Debate is generally the debate for the Opp osition. Yet, because they have no real debate in respect to the Budg et they, I believe in my opinion, have raised this as a red herring. I can hear them moan ing and gr oan ing but the issue is very clear to me, Mr. Speaker. As I have indi cated, we debate matters of privi lege only and I would say that in this case, the motion was made correctly but the substance of the motion was not a matter of privile ge.

The fact that the motion is correct, that the issue that is being raised is correct in format, does not make it a matter of privi lege. I agai n repeat, that since we have agreed and ma ny ti mes rem in ded each other that we will not mention who's in or who's out of the Cham ber, that that question then can not become a matter of privile ge. If someone wants to take it up with the Ru les Commit tee they can very well do so. There are a numb er of ways to bring it before the Rules Comm ittee but a matter of privi lege is not the way to do it. Let me go on a little bit further, Mr.

Speaker , and in dicate that there are a nu mber of other thi ngs that have occurred which it grie ves me to have to repeat in this Hous e in respect to the procedures. I kno w it was partly my fault that we never got to debate the matter of which takes precedence, point of order or matter of privile ge. But I want to indi cate to you today and this is my opinion and I think it's jus t common sense that a point of order has to take precedence over any thing else whether it come s before the House at this time or any other time . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please.

The Honour able Memb er for Virden on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe we're disc ussing a Resolution before us. I think the honour able mem ber is bringing some extraneous material in to the debate that has no rele vance whatsoever to the debate before us. MR. FOX: On that point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I want to ind icate to you that one of the problems we have in this House is procedure and a matter of privi lege is part of the procedure that we're having diffi culty over because, when the memb er was speak ing some mem bers try to get up on a point of order and they were denied the floor at that time. Later on somebody was speak ing on a point of order and somebody was denie d on a matter of privi lege so we've got to get our act together one way or the other. I'm going to again say it's plain common sense what we have to dis cuss in respect to a matter of privilege or a point of order.

A point of order has to take precedence because if you're using the wrong procedure, a privi lege or any other matter is in valid . You may have no quorum; that's a point of order. So you can dis cuss all the matters of privi lege you like, you can't come to any decisions because you don't have enough memb ers in the Hous e. So again, I want to reiterate a poin t of order takes precedence and a matter of privi lege, in this ins tance, it was not. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Dep uty Speaker.

I'm quite surprised that mem bers in this Chamb er would want to dis cuss some thing that has already been dealt with and I would suggest to you, Sir, that any person who wants to arg ue about whether or not it's a point of privilege or not is really, in essence, challenging the ruling of the Chair and, Mr. Speaker, it is my in tention to defend the ruling of the Chair because if you des troy the paramou nts of the Chair you have destroyed the parliamentary system. Mr.

Speaker, what we see today is the face of idiocy in this Chamb er, not realiz in g that when we are discus sing a matter of this urgenc y in the Hous e that it is democr acy itself that is on trial. The very subject matter before us today is whether or not the Executive Council should be called or should be in this Chamber when debate is occur ring on a very im portant matter which is the whole policy of the Executive Council. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring it to the hon ourable 2583

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 mem bers' attention tha t before they can come in to this Chamber they have to be elected to sit in this Ass embly and once they have been elected to sit in this Ass emb ly, and I realize that it's not entir ely true, but in 99 percent of the cases the Executive Council is chosen from mem bers who have been elected to sit in this Ass embly.

This Assembly meets, according to our rules, it mus t sit at least onc e every 12 months where the program of the Executive Council is placed before every mem ber of the Ass embly and the Executive Council is called to explai n their program to every mem ber of the Ass embly and that incl udes mem bers on the other side who are not in the Executive Council. That is part of the parliame ntary system and that is part of democ racy. If you challenge the parliamentary system, then you challenge democr acy.

If the Honour able Govern ment Ho use Leader wants to do that, then I suggest that he go out and do that to the people rather than do it in this Cham ber, because the system of dem ocracy and the parliamentary system is one that must be protected. It is a very fragile thing, but it is a system that brings in to this Assembly at least onc e every year the memb ers of the Executive Council and they are called before this Assembly to answer for their actions. If those mem bers choose not to take

part in Debate, then it does to some extent curtail the amount of debate that goes on and does prevent the wholesome ... Mr. Speaker, there may be some in this Chamber that want to get in the gutter, but I prefer to debate in this Cham ber and parliament ary debate belongs in this Chamb er. The parliame ntary system must be pro tected and this is the place for true parliam entary debate to take place. So I suggest to every memb er of this Asse mbly that if you want to preserve the parlia mentary system and preserve the democratic system, that you support the Res olution that is before us.

The Res olution asks that the Rules Commi ttee consider a request that half of the Executive Council be in this Assembly when its program is being debated. The Reso lution makes no mention of question period; makes no mention, Mr. Speaker, of any bills that are before the Hous e; makes no mention of any gov ernment reso lution. All it is asking is that in the one single program of governme nt, that is, when they put forward their Bud get for the entir e year, that mem bers of the Executive Council be in this Ass emb ly to listen to the debate, to take

part in the debate and, if there are points raised in debate, that they are here to answer them, correct them or make their contr ibution so that the debate can be carried on to the benefit of the dem ocratic system and to the benefit of the people of Manitoba. So, Mr. Speaker, I sugge st to each and every mem ber who is not a memb er of the Executive Coun cil, to support this Resol ution. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Health. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr.

Speaker, I under stand this is a debatable motion and I certainly in tend to take part, it is my right no matter what high-pockets says out there. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not a bit dis turbed, I am not insul ted, I am not inc ensed, I am not sur- 2584 prised. I mi ght be in sane, if I'm here long enough I could be in sane, that's possible. Now, Mr. Speaker , I think it is some thing that I would expect and I'd like us again to examine the strategy that we see in front of us today. Rememb er, Mr. Speaker, that the Budget Speech is there mostly to gi ve the memb ers of the Opp osition a chance to speak.

It is, therefore, the mem bers of the Opposition and remem ber that there is even a set numb er of days, and remem ber that this has to be called and there is no other business during that ti me, un less it's adjour ned. It is obvious, after listening to the debate, that they have nothing to say, they were caught by com plete surp rise. All we heard is platitudes. They felt so bad, they were so sur e that it was going to be sales tax , as I said yesterday, all their speeches were on sales tax and that's all they were stick with it Now they're losing out and they want to waste time.

As the Member for Concordia said, it is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, - (I nterject ion)- there's smi ley. There's the genius. Can we stop for a minu te and look at the genius and look at the person that likes to rule by deg rees? - (In terjection)- He's right here. He wasn't here all afternoon but the genius is here. People are dumb . He doesn't kno w how they got their call to the Bar. He's in sulting his own trad ition and a beach whale. Well listen, you weigh three quarters as much as I do and you are this short, so I guess you'd call that a half assed beach whale. Mr.

Speaker, they want to in troduce a red herring. This is what they want to do on their own time; they don't want to talk about the Budget. The memb er that intr oduced the resolution certainly kn ows more than that and he had a big smile during the debate before 5:00 o'clock. He's a leaders hip candi date for that side and he introduced the motion -(I nterje ction) - What's that degr ee, what's that again? Wel l, certainly not for the leadership of your party and neither ... Are you going to let them call a leader ship ... Oh no, you changed that rule. -(I nterjec tion)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

Or der please. Could I rem ind honour able mem bers to address their remarks to the Chair ? MR. DESJARDINS: Yes, I should go on a higher level; I' d sooner talk to the Chair as the Leader of the Oppo sition; you'r e right. Are you going to speak on this? A MEMBER: You'r e a bigger fool now than you were when you were elected and I'm here to testify to that. MR. DESJARDINS: Maybe you should tell my consti tuency that. A MEMBER: What party do you belong to now? MR. DESJARDINS: The good party. -(I nterje ction) ! welcome that. He wants to kn ow what party. I have certain principl es that I' ve never changed.

I' ve got the courage of my convictions; not like shorty out there. We talk about restraint and all of a sudden, giv e, giv e, giv e and who came in with a big flower and a big smile? -(I nterje ction)- Look at skinny. This is the same party that wants the Ru les Comm ittee; fat stuff,

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 stupid, beach whale. Doesn't it scare you to be so bright and the only one so brig ht? It doesn't scare you? No, you believe that. A MEMBER: Com pared to you we all look bright. MR. DESJARDINS: Oh well, if you look iri that kind of mi rror, that's fine. That's the kind of mir ror that's in a funny house and that's probably where you are because you belong to a funny house out there. (I nterjec tion)- You wouldn't understand anyway. No, the mover of the Resolution, Mr. Speaker, did not say that the rules were broken. He didn' t say that there was some thing against trad ition or the customs.

You kn ow he is talking about some thin g that is done in the Ho use of Commo ns, in every Ho use. Here it's the same thin g and it was done when these people were in governm ent; it was done dur ing the Roblin years; it was done during the Schreyer years and it'll keep on being done because it is im possible, Mr. Speaker, to try to run a department and be here at all time s. I was one of the front bench that was here when this motion was passed, by accident .

At 3:00 o'clock, after the question period, I was asked by one of the mem bers on the other side who had a problem, a legiti mate problem, with somebody in his constituenc y and I went to my office to try to help these people im me diately and that motion could have been called then and there's no way, Mr. Speaker, that you can do your work. The Session has been four to eight weeks and there is no way that you can be here ... MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Hon ourable Minis ter of Health. MR.

DESJARDINS: How em barrassing it must be for the mem bers on that side and especially when I'm talking about the rules and we have the genius out there com in g in and makin g statements like this. He doesn't even kno w what it's all about as usual. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the mem ber that moved this motion would have been serious he certainly wouldn't have taken time from his people, time dur in g the debate on the Budget, because they are facilities.

He certainly is entitled to gi ve his opinion, there is no doubt about that at all and, in fact, the trad ition and the rules pro vide exactly for that because there is an opportuni ty to make a speech on gr ievance and to get it off your chest if there's some thin g that bothers you, Mr. Speaker, so that could have been accompli shed without this red herring and without tak ing time from this Debate on this Budget. No w, Mr. Speaker, I think the memb er said, well there had to be Cabi net Ministers?

I don't see where they dif ferentiate between the front bench and the backbench and he even added that as far as he was concerned, that he didn' t care if the mem bers of the backbench were here at all. This is exactly what he said. Everybody has one vote, one vote only and, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the Minister of Fi nance feels that we have to hold his hand to show that we support him. You kn ow, if the people want to kno w the way it works, we've had meetings to talk about the Budg et; we've had Bud get meetings -(I nterject ion)- what're you sa ying, shorty? Oh he's dumb . Oh boy, that's great.

It takes a genius to call people dumb and fatso and com mun ist. You kno w, no wonder he's been an em barrass ment to all the mem bers of this House and especially to his own party who'd like to get rid of him. Mind you, he's the biggest asset we had. I think that he did more to help the -(I nterje ction )- Well, at least I keep my principl es, not like you. I' ve got the courage of my princi ples and if it means changing party, I change party. -(I nterjec tion)- Exactly where I' ve been all the time, exactly from ... Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, if shorty can keep quiet awhile, if he can crawl back oh no, he is in his own, oh no, he's sitting up, I'm sorry, I couldn' t see him for awhile there, Mr. Speaker. -(I nterjec tion )- Flatter you, that's the last thing I' d do. Mr. Speaker , I think the mem ber that made this motion could have said what was bugging him. He had all the chan ces in the world but he di dn't want that. As I said, the Minister of Fi nance kno ws that he has the backing . We've met two long weekends in a row, in cluding the Friday afternoon, all day Sunday to dis cuss that. We met with the Caucus; that work has been done .

We're standing behind the Minister of Fin ance 10 0 percent. Mr. Speaker, nowhere does it say that you have to be here to listen to all the speeches. It is imp ossible and, in fact, I think there were eight of the memb ers of Cabine t who spoke on this Debate already, eight of us, and there was one that was slated for tonig ht, to speak tonight and a few mo re.

I would imagine tha t, if we would have had all the time, that all the memb ers of the Cabine t would have spoken; there's eight that spoke already. 2585 Now a Session could be anywhere from four to eight mon ths and anybody, especially those that have had experience, can tell me that they can sit here all day and run a department, I certainly don't believe it and I can't see how they could do it, it is imp ossi ble. They did the same thing as we did . Then the saying is in Ottawa, the same thing, everybody is setting up meet ings after the question period.

That has been the tradi tion of this House and the memb er said, well he would like to have the Rules Comm ittee meet to make sure that there's more Ministers. Well, what does he sug gest? Half of them? Three-quarters of them? How many? How many should be there and should it be each their turn or should it go by the responsi bility that you have, the amount of Budge t that you have? I'd im agine the Minister of Health would have to be here all the time when I have respons ibility for one-third of the Budget, I guess I should be here all the time. Mr.

Speaker , the Member for Roblin was saying that I wasn't meeting with his mem bers of his consti tuency, people that wanted to meet with the Minister. So we're supposed to be here? We're supposed to look after our own department and we're supposed to meet with everybody else. So all right, the Session started when? So you kn ow it's imp ossi ble, Mr. Speaker, to be doing all those things at once. As I said, it doesn't sur pris e me, it doesn't excite me, it is a strategy, it's quite obvious because they're tak ing some of their own time not to debate this Budget, they don't want to debate this Budg et.

We've participated and I think the public kn ows that we've supported the Minister of Fina nce, that we're behind him. The work is not done here, you don' t have

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 to hold his hand. You have other work to do, Mr. Speaker. -(In terjection)- I'm afraid I can't say the same thing as you, you can't be any dumb er than you are now. So it's im possible to be bothered. You know, this is a gr eat way to debate. You'r e dumb. No I'm not You'r e dumb. No, you're dumber. Any time now you're probably going to say, you'r e mother wears running shoes or that kind of thing or a babushka or something like that. You know, your mother wears a babushka or you're a com munist. You know, Charlie McCarthy?

Well, it's not Edgar Bergen, it's Charlie McCarthy mout hing Joe McCar thy you know, you'r e a com m uni st. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's one thing though that I'm very pleased with, that the memb er talked about the Rules Comm ittee. I think we should, I think it's about time we have a meeting of the Rules Com mi ttee and we'll look at the Ru les on both sides; the way ques tions are asked, the way questions are answered, because we're mak ing a mocker y. There's yelling con tinually on this thing .

I'm speaking for all the memb ers because we're all as gu ilty one as the other, I'm guilty and you're guilty, we're all gui lty -(lnterjection) well, I'm not speaking for you. Mr. Speaker, the memb er who come s in and the name-calling that we've seen, who em barrasses peo ple to tears, who's been an embarrass ment to the province is out there and talking about speaking for himself. He's the one that wants to rule by decree; he said then it becomes rules, it becomes law. Well, he's had it, he'll never come back, he's on his way out, he's not going to last four years.

Talk about four years, they're going to kick him out the first chance they have. They'll use him as the hatchetman for a few years and then before the election they' ll change their im age and get somebody a little more reasona ble, that won't be too difficult. If we're going to talk about the Rules Comm ittee let's talk about the Rules Comm ittee. Let's bring the Rules Comm ittee in and talk about the way the com mi ttes are made, talk about what is ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. LYON: What deal did you make to run again and become a memb er of the Cabin et? MR.

DESJARDINS: How in the hell did you ever become Prem ier of this Province? MR. LYON: By opposing people like you. MR. DESJARDINS: And that is why you lasted one term at best or your mother wears running shoes! MR. LYON: You'r e really clever, aren't you? MR. DESJARDINS: I'm just as clever as you any day of the week, any day in the gutter, and on the hockey rink, anywhere you want You might scare some of these people but you don't scare me a damn bit, not even a little bit -(In terjection)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Indeed, all mem bers should address their remarks to the Chair .

I think it adds to the decorum of the Ho use. In addit ion I believe that all mem bers will have their opportunity to speak on this motion if they so wish, therefore, would they please wait their turn and wait patiently while each memb er has a chance to express himself on this motion? MR. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask if he could contain himself just for a few minutes -( Interject ion)- you've passed that stage -( Inter jection)- Mr. Speaker, if we're going to talk about the Rules Committee, I' ve been trying to make a point; I' ve been interrupted about 20 time s. But, Mr.

Speaker, let's have a meeting of the Rules Comm ittee and let's look at the question period to start with, the way the questions are asked , the way they're answered. Let's have the same rules fo r everybody; let's look at the condition that people come in to make sure that peo ple don't come in under the in fluence of liquor in debate. Let's look at these things and let's clean up the act here. I'm all for it I'm ready to go along with anybody and I'm ready to follow the rules providing the rules are played the same by everybody. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Memb er for Roblin-Russell. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin-Russell): Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a tragedy. The governm ent over here is not prepared to listen to the Op position or the taxpayers of this province to talk about this Bud get; scared stiff to walk in the door; scared stiff to stand in their seats. And, Mr. Speaker, we have to be stood up tonight and listen to one of the most - the oldest memb er of this Chamb er -of more service, Mr. Speaker, and to giv e a lesson especially to these new mem bers about the decorum of this Ho use from that Member for St Boniface. Mr.

Speaker, I wish I had about four hours to tell about the political career of that Hono urable Member for St Boniface who stood up in this House tonight, Mr. Speaker, and said he's not disturbed - he's never been distu rbed he's been a Lib eral, he's been an NOP , he's been every thing, he's not disturbed about anyt hing. He also said he's not insulted. Who can insult him? He's never been insu lted by Li berals or NOP ; he just runs ram pant through this place. He's big, he's rough, he's toug h, he abuses you, Mr. Speaker, he jus t takes over. 2586 But the tragedy is, Mr.

Speaker, he made a lot of statements that I cannot digest He said and I wrote it down, "the Budget that's for the Op position." What an insult to the taxpayers of this province, the Budget - he said it, Mr. Speaker, and I quoted him - I'm stand ing up here and defending the taxpayers of this prov ince in this Budge t; so are all of us. He said, in fact, and I quote him, "the Budget for the Op position" and that's the problem with that governme nt over there, they don't und erstand; they never will und erstand; they don't know what the political process of this province is all about, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I stand here in support of the motion that was put before the Hous e by my Ho use leader. I was thinking at the end of his remarks that the Hon ourable Member for St Boniface was going to support that motion. It seems to me as I got the tenor of his voice, that he is in support of it because he said call the

Rules Com mittee and that's in the motion. so I suspect he's going to vote for it. He said, Mr. Speaker. the Opposition don't want to debate the Budget, what a farce. The problem is, Mr. Speaker , they haven't read the Res olution that's before this Comm ittee. Have you read the Res olution? All the Res olution asks is for at least a mino rity of the Treasury Bench fo sit over at your desk and listen to what we have to say and that's all it said, a min ority to listen and they're not prepared to do that but they're going to vote agai nst it, Mr. Speaker. The problem, Mr.

Speaker. with this governme nt, I' ve said it in my Thr one Speech and I' ve said it. weak, ill-conceived, no planning, no dir ection, they're run ning rampant over there. They've got no whip; if they had a whip they wouldn' t have this problem they got today. The other problem, they got this Member for Spring field over there who think s he's a speaker and he can run all the Rules of this Ho use and he was here before Moses that's sitting over there behin d him.

I hope the Member for Spr in gfield one of these days will clean up his act and if the Hou se Leader of the party over there would stop listening to him and listen to my Hous e Leader . we wouldn't get ourselves in to these problems because I suspect the Member for Spring field has got you in more problems than any body over here has, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. could I have a glass of water please? Because. Mr. Speak er. I would like to go about 40 min utes if I could, on this subject.

I think it deserves gr eat debate; I think it dese rves long hours of debate because there's a lot of things that have to be - and it gives me a second chance to make a second Budget speech. Mr. Speaker, this is a political arena and surely memb ers over there under stand this is a political arena. To stand up and be critic al of us for catching you off gu ard and put a resolution on the Or der Paper and now you'r e mad, we caught you off guar d. You've got a poor whip; you' ve got a poor leader over there and you' ve got no Premier, you'r e ill-led you're ill conceived and, Mr. Speaker. there they stand.

Either Anstett, the Member for Spring field's running the place or the Ho use Leader's running the place or the whip's running the pla ce, it sure isn' t the Pr emier. I still think as I stand here tonight, because I watched the conference that took place around the desk of the Honour able Member for Sprin gfield, he's running that caucus. at least he's tryi ng to. He's the guy that's getting in tr ouble. I tell you my frien ds, we kno w about the Honour able Member for Spring field. He was here one time and he left this place and we have a lot of kn owledge about his works in this place, Mr. Speaker .

I advise the Premier and the Hous e Leader real quick. dump that guy over there. Get rid of him because he'll get you in more trouble in one day than you can pos sibly experience in a whole week. He thi nks he kno ws the rules; he thi nks he kno ws this place; he thinks he was here before Moses who is sitti ng over there behin d him . I sugge st, Mr. Speaker, he has a lot to learn about this arena and about polit ics. I kn ow the learned Member for Ste. Rose who is sitting beside him should be guidin g him better than he is. Mr. Speaker , the substance of this moti on; what is the substance of the motio n?

The motion asks for at 18 May, 1982 least a min ority of the Treasury Bench to sit and listen to see if we can get you out of this dif ficult problem that you have, where you basically have a worse Bud get than MacEachen had in Ottawa. You really have. The mor e we dig in to it and the more we try and develop, it's a worst Budget than MacEachen has. Mr. Speaker, the people of this province are not acquainted with hidden taxes. There's hidden taxes listed all through that Budg et. The people of this prov in ce are not acquainted with that.

It 's our duty as an Opp osition to make them acquainted with those hid den taxes. They stand up-sure they're not prepared to listen over there -no. Luckily today the Fir st Minister stayed in for a little while. I see, Mr. Speaker . they're scared of the Bud get already. They can't defend it. I haven't heard one Minister over there stand up and defend this Budget. They'll talk about Alberta. Sas katchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Is land. We heard the Honour able Minister of Nor thern Affa irs today and he went at great length . He never defended this Budge t.

He attacked us when we were in Op posi tion, but I never heard him espouse one word in sup port of this Bu dget. Not a word. Mr. Speaker, and he can rise in his place again at a later date. So, I think, Mr. Speaker. it is our duty as an Op posi tion to stand up and let the people of this provi nce - even if we have to do it by a resolution that was con ceived by the Hous e Leader of our party -to alert the people of this provin ce. It 's that bad; it's ill-conceived; it's ill-time d and we don' t want no part of it. We're going to tell the people, even if we have to do it this way. It 's that bad. Mr.

Speaker, is the Member for St. Bon iface trying to tell me tonight and the mem bers of this Legisla ture and the people of this provi nce, it's not the duty of the Opp osition to stand up and fight this Budget until we can't breathe no more if it's that bad? Is that what they're trying to tell us? Wel l. we'll learn when they vote. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have that learned whip that they got over there now to make sure enough bodies are in the Cham ber. He should resi gn. That's about the third time he's been caught with his pants down - at least the thir d ti me. I apologiz e for him because he's a new mem ber.

I don't think anybody even explai ned to him what the duties of a whip are. I say, Mr. Speaker, that he has failed his party mi sera bly. This is not the fir st occasion, Mr. Speaker ; it's the third occasion that memb er has failed his party. I don't kn ow if the Fi rst Minis ter's going to put him in the governme nt or not. I doubt it now. He'll likely go to the salt min es now or back home. 2587 Mr. Speaker. let's go through this document again to tell the people of this province what they promis ed and what they pledged and all the thin gs that they said they were going to do.

That's the reason why we're standing up and fighting -(I nterjec tion)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Member for Thomp son on a point of order. MR. STEVE ASHTON (Thompson): The debate is on the motion with regards to the Commi ttee of Privi leges, it's not on the Budget or on whatever whims the Member for Roblin-Russell has. Really, for that mat ter, it shouldn't be a matter of having personal insu lts. There is a substantive motion on the floor and this is

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 not on that. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable memb er for his com ment s. The Hon ourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there's a clas sic example of the mental ity of their whip over there. He doesn't even kn ow the rules -doesn't understand the rules. How can he be whip? How can he whip that party when he doesn't un derstand the rules? He just rose in his place and put certain senti ments in the record which you un derstood, Mr. Speaker, and I un derstood but, he doesn't. That's the tragedy of that party: leaderless, weak, no whip.

Lis tening to the Member for Spri ngfield guide them through these dif ficult times and there they stand. It 's a tragedy. I would think, Mr. Speaker, if this reso lution had been on the Order Paper tonig ht that we're discussi ng, the people of this provin ce wouldn't really realize how bad they are over there; how really bad they are. Mr. Speaker, let's go back and look what they said in the Throne Speech. Have you read that one lately? I'm ask in g the Member for Sprin gfield . Has he gone through that one lately? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Government Hous e Leader on a point of order.

POINT OF ORDER HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule whether or not what the Hon ourable Member for Roblin -Russell is doing referring to the Throne Speech as he attempted a few mo ment s ago, to refer to some piece of election literature, is in order. It seems to me that there ought to be some return to san ity in this Hous e at this time. If memb ers want to speak to the motion, then speak to it. Let their remarks be relevent to the motion. I think we've had enoug h of this kind of in sane nons ense from either side of the Hous e.

We're bringing the Ho use in to dis repute and it's time that there was a little bit of settling down. Speak to the motion. Let's deal with the motion. Let's get on with the business of the Ho use. If you want to debate the Bud get, then have a vote on this; get it out of the way one way or another and get back to the Budget. I'm sure that the people of Manitoba, Sir , who elected all of us did not elect us to engage in the kind of circus which has been started by that ill-conceived motion. But, if we are to debate it, let's at least debate it, not go all the over the map.

The mem bers opposite are taking up the time they claim is so precious to them to debate the Budge t. Well, debate the Budg et, but let's not debate everything including these ridiculous, childish remarks. I'm sitting here -(I nterjec tion)- yes, minu te after minu te wonderi ng if I'm in a Ho use with adults in it or a Ho use of people who ought to be back in some kind of kinder garten or zoo. Let's restore a sense of decorum. I appeal to you, Sir , sitting as you are, as Speaker, to exert your authority to make sure that is what happens. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Turtle Mountain on the same point of order. 2588 MR. RANSOM: Mr. Dep uty Speaker, on the same point of order. If the Government Hous e Leader has a point of order then he should use it as a point of order and not rise to debate the motion for a second time, which is what the Govern ment Ho use Leader has just done. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to thank both mem bers for their com ments and I would say that I am also concerned by the remarks of the Member for Roblin-Russell.

He indic ated, I believe although to be certain I would have to check Ha nsard - I believe he ind icated that this was an opportun ity to debate the Budget a second time. Clearly the Member for Thompson had a legitima te point of order when he indic ated to the Ho use, and to all mem bers, that speeches were to be di rectly rele vant to the question. Any remarks contr ary to that ruling would be clearly out of order and I would ask all mem bers to deal di rectly with the motion and let us deal with it forthrightly and di rectly, dispense with it and proceed with the im portant busine ss that is before us. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, are those memb ers opposite tryi ng to tell me that the Throne Speech is not related to the Budget or, in fact, that the House Leader stood up and said, well, I'm waving this docu ment in front of my hand from this gr eat Premier of our provinc e, that it was a child ish message that he sent out to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker? Is that what he said? If I heard him correctly, that's what the Hous e Leader said. -(I nterjec tion )- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Or der please.

The motion before us is the motion that was presented by the Hono urable Member for Turtle Mountain. That is the motion that we're debating, not the Budge t, that we would wish we could conti nue to debate once we were fin ished. If the hono urable mem ber could con fine his remarks to the motion that is before us. The Honour able Member for Robli n-Russell. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guid ance, but if you read the motion, the motion is related to the Budget, the Budget Debate, and I'm speaking about the Budget Debate and the way the mem bers opposite, they don't sit in their seats.

I' ve related it back to the Throne Speech and I' ve related to the Budget, and I've related remarks - if I'm out of order, Mr. Speaker, you rise in your place and I will sit down. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the edification of all membe rs, the motion before us is, moved by the Hon ourable Member for Turtle Mountain, seconded by the Honour able Member for Lakeside; THAT the Rules Commit tee consider the advis abil ity of requir ing that a majority of memb ers of the Treasury Bench be present during the Budget Debate. The substantive issue here is that this majority of the mem bers of the Treasury Bench be present.

The Hon ourable Member for Robli n-Russell. Does

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 the honour able mem ber have further com ments on the motion? MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'd be much happier if I had a copy in my hand. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm waiting for the Clerk to deliver the copy if I can have that privi lege. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. McKENZIE: Than k you, Mr. Speaker. I rise again and than k you for the consid eration of presenting me with a copy of the Resolution that's before the Hous e.

It says here: "THAT the Rules Comm ittee consider the advisabil ity of requiring a majority of the memb ers of the Treasury Bench be present during the Budget Debate." And, Mr. Speaker, I' ve related to the Budget several times in my address and you must have heard me, Mr. Speaker. I' ve also related to the Thr one Speech. If it's going to embarrass the mem bers oppo site that much I don' t want them to be em barrassed because of my address, Mr. Speaker. All I want them to do is to sit and listen to what the Opp osition has to say in this Budget Debate.

I'll not go back and dwell with these gr eat docum ents that came out dur ing the election campaign like this one, where Conse rvatives will gi ve away anyth in g to be re-elected, in fact, they're willin g to give away Manitoba ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. Order please. The Honour able Governme nt Hous e Leader on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Time and time again we have heard from memb ers opposite this evening about our gr eat parliamentary system -and I thin k it is a gr eat system - and the rules which un derlie that system.

Here twice you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, sitti ng in the Speaker's Chair which symbol izes the authority of the Hous e and the authority of the Speaker, that Her Majesty's business be done in the Ho use, twice you have ruled that what that memb er has done is out of order and now a thir d tim e he has dared to stand in his seat to defy your ruling? I call upon you, if he does it agai n, to name that mem ber, as he has name d before, and to let him know what the authority of the Speaker is. If we don't know tonight what the authority of the Speaker is, we never will. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I than k the Honour able Attorney-General for his advice. If the Honour able Member for Roblin-Russel l would conclud e his remarks on the moti on, please. MR. McKENZIE: Than k you, Mr. Speaker. I regret very much the sentiment s of the Hous e Leader. I don' t thin k in all the years I' ve been here I' ve ever heard such arrogance, ever, from a House Leader. This is a British Parlia me ntary system that we're practising in this room, Sir, and if that's the rules that you'r e going to apply as Hous e Leader in this place I will sit down . Dem ocracy is gone in this province. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Thank you, Mr. Dep uty Speaker. I will stick to the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I don't want to live in fear of the House Leader. I can only accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Ho use Leader can stand up and giv e the House in structions, such as he just did previo usly, we are in a sorry position. Mr. Speaker, the motion that has been put before us, Sir , has been put before us for a reason that has become very obvious sin ce the Budget Debate started in this Ho use.

The motio n, I might say, Sir , was thought of several days ago but it was also thought that it would be not the best thing to do and possible the Treasury Bench would come down and start to giv e the Opp osition the courtesy, and the people that elected the Opp osition, the cou rtesy of listening to their debate. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Fi rst Minister and he talked about people who mi ssed question period and people who mi ssed debates previously within this Ho use.

I don' t presume to do that because I don't presume to say any thing and I won't say anyth ing because I don't have the proof of who was here when, if ever before, except in 19 73, Mr. Speaker, I went to a town hall during the election and found someb ody from the NOP Party had been keeping my attendance up in the Hous e and I hope that never happens again and I hope that we do not refer to who's in the House and who isn' t. But, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the reason forth is motion is a request for a majority, I believe, or a large percentage of the Cabi net to be here.

Now yesterday when the Governme nt of Canada, a Minister from the Govern ment of Canada took the time to be concerned about the Budget of Manitoba and what it may do to Manitoba, I would say that this has to be one of the im portant Budgets that will ever be before us for a long time and cert ainly one of the most im portant that we've had in a long time. I would suggest that when the mem bers opposite on Treasury Board met with the Hono urable Mr. Axworthy, there might have been three or four of them, there would have been no reason why there couldn't have been other Ministers in the Ho use.

Sir , I don' t think the motion would ever have been presented if we hadn' t found on many occasions when there were none and many occasions when there was only one. Mr. Speaker, I say on many occasions, I am not one of the best attenders in the Hous e from time to time but I appre ciate the Bud get Debate because I thin k it's one of the most im portant debates that is in this Legisla ture. Now let's talk about the im portance of this one, Mr. 2589 Speaker. Here we have a government and the Minister of Fi nance and a Prem ier who is presenting a brand new tax int o the Provinc e of Manitoba.

The sales tax was presented many years ago. We've had occasions when there have been in creases of taxes. We have had many occasions when there have been decreases in

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 taxes but un der this Bud get Debate. Sir, there has been a brand new tax in troduced in to the Province of Manitoba and the Treasury Bench should be here to listen to the debate that goes on in the Ho use. We have now had in troduced to us. Mr. Speaker, by this gove rn ment. a tax that every person who pays a salary in this provi nce must take 1. 5 percent of that payroll and pay it. -(I nterjec tion )- Well. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fi nanc e says, I kno w better than that. It wasn't me that said it. I'm only going by what the Minister has said in this Ho use.

He said, everybody who has a payroll in this provi nce ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Fir st Minister on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Selkirk): The Member for Sturgeon Cr eek had told us but four or five minu tes ago that he would restrict himself to the motion. It has taken but a few words for him to enter in to the sub stance of the Budget. Mr.

Speaker, I think that Manit obans expect and in deed, deserve to have us dealin g with the substance of the Bud get and not this kind of unfortunate wavering and wanderi ng and reckless moving about that really is provid in g no constructive result. Mr. Deputy Speaker. if honourable mem bers can't restrict themselves to the motion then I would suggest that we have a vote so we can get back to the debate that Manitobans are in terested in, rather than ducking the debate on the Budget. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Stu rgeon Creek on the point of order. -(I nterjec tion )- MR.

JOHNSTON: On the point of order and with all due respect. Sir , I don't kn ow that it was ... -(Int erjection)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Fir st Minister has made some com ments about a point of order. I sim ply ask the mem bers to make their remarks relevant to the motion before us. Remarks that stray towards remarks on the Budget or other matters either being debated or previously debated are clearly out of order and I would ask honourable memb ers to confine their remarks to the specific motion before us. MR.

JOHNSON: I would like to speak briefly to the point of order and then I will get back, Sir . I have been speaking, mention ing the Budget and every time I' ve mentio ned the Budget I have referred to the reasons why the mem bers should be in the House. If the im portant points of the Budget are not the reasons for the mem bers to be in the Hous e then, really, I don' t kn ow why the resolutions are there because they obviously don' t believe in being in it. So, Mr. Speaker.

I will try to stick to the Res olution and I'm only saying why the Res olution was presented and why the mem bers should be in the Hous e for the Budget. Mr. Speaker, I heard him say that I'm afraid to debate the Budget. I have debated the Budget and I'm saying that the mem bers on the opposite side and the Treasury Bench who have placed before us a Budget which they should be in the Ho use to listen to, and that's what the request is, because it's probably a time in history in the Provi nce of Manitoba that we won't see for a long time, that they should be here, Mr.

Speaker, because the Budge t in trod uces a brand new tax to this provi nce. It in troduces a new bureacracy to collect it and it in troduces all ki nds of mo ney to have to collect it and everybody that hires somebody has to pay it. Now. Mr. Speaker, if that does not have an effect on the indus try com ing to this provi nce, if it does not have an effect on everythin g in the pro vi nce ... -(I nterject ion)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Fir st Minister. MR. PAWLEY: I would ask again whether or not the member is speaking to the Resolution at hand. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the honour able memb er was making his com ments on the Res olution. It is very dif ficult in deed, for the Speaker to rule on each occasion where a memb er refers to a budgetary matter because it is my opinion that the honour able memb er has trie d to relate it to the motion in some way. I would ask mem bers to confine their remarks as closely as possible to the matter before us so that we can in deed continue with the debate on the Budget. The Hon ourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I thank you for your ruling and if the childish request of the Fir st Minister is such that he wants me to say, every time I mention the Budget. that he should be here soliciting to it, I will say so. The Fir st Minister should be listen ing to the Budget because it's a brand new type of tax that's in the Pro vinc e of Manitoba. The Fir st Minister should be listen ing to the Budget because it is the fir st time that we've had this type of a payr oll tax in the Pr ovinc e of Manitoba.

The Fir st Minister should be here listen ing to the Budget with the Minister of Fi nance because everybody in this provi nce who pays a salary will now have to submit mo ney to the Pr ovince of Manitoba in some way, shape or form. He should be li sten ing to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, because they will have to have a bureacracy to collect it; they will have to have insp ectors for church's books and everything, so the Fi rst Minister should be listen in g to the Budge t. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Honour able Govern ment Hous e Leader. POINT OF ORDER 2590 MR. PENNER: You have.

Sir , this even ing thr ee of fourt imes already ruled that speeches should be rela tive to the motio n. The Member for Sturgeon Cr eek has, despite the liberality of your ruling, has chosen - thinkin g that he's being sm art I suppose and that he can pull one overy our eyes -to try and do an end-run around your ruling. I think that it should be clear that he can't nor can any memb er. There is a motion.

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 debate the moti on, if he's not prepared to debate the motion then he should be told to sit down, not by me but by the Speaker . The Speaker must rule that we have to restore the decorum of this Ho use, we have to restore the order in this Ho use. If we can't do that this evening then I think we've lost the game. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition on the same point of order. HON.

STERLING LYON (Charleswood): On the point of order, I distinc tly heard you, Sir, less than two or three minu tes ago say that you, in response to the Fir st Minister, had determi ned that the Member for Sturgeon Creek was speaking to the motion. I've not determi ned any thin g from his com ments sin ce that time that would lead you to believe that the ir respon sible com ment s by the Attorney-General, and puta tive Leader of the Ho use, are in any way deser ving of your consi deration.

I would suggest, Sir , with the greatest of respect that you tell the Leader of the Ho use that he should read the rules and become more acquaint ed with the methods of procedure in this kind of a Canadian parli ament before he stands up and trie s to in flict his kind of personal bias with respect to debate upon this House. You, Sir, have made a ruling with respect to the Member for St Ja mes.

I sugg est, with the gr eatest of respect, the Member for Sturgeon Creek be allowed to carry on as before without the in terruptions from the Fir st Minister or the Attorney-General who don't seem to like free democr atic parliamentary debate. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would thank both the hon ourable me mbers for their commen ts. I would say that the ini tial in tent of my remarks to the Honour able Member for Stur geon Creek was to ind icate that an occasional reference to the Budget Debate would be acceptable.

However, to in fer from that that prefacin g each statement that he make s that the Honour able Fir st Minister should listen because, does not consti tute arguing to the point The Honour able Member for Sturgeon Cr eek. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and might say that this would not have been necessary if we hadn' t have had them becomin g very touchy of why the Resolution is the way it is, Sir .

The Resolution reads that the Rules Comm ittee consider the advisa bility of requiring that a majority of the member s of Treasury Bench be present during the Budget Debate and the debate on it is basically the reason why they should be here. I have said the reason why they should be here is, this is a brand new tax in the Pr ovi nce of Manitoba. This tax can have an effect on everybody in Manitoba and that's why three quarters of the Treasury Bench should be here dur ing the Budget Debate. Now, Mr.

Speaker , I find it kind of hard to say that they should be here dur in g the Budg et Debate to listen to some thing else. I can only say to them, Sir , that the reason for the Resolution is that we want them here dur ing the Budget Debate to hear the Budget Debate. The reasons for wanting to hear the Budget Debate is the Budget and I' ve trie d very had to stick to that but they're very touchy on the other side .

They don't like wanting to kno w that the Treasury Bench really has an obligation as the people who sat down and desig ned this Budge t and brought us a tax in Manitoba for the fir st time in history that we'll ever have the tax, that that isn't important 2591 If they do not regard the fact that the Treas ury Be nch were the people that put this Budget together and the Treasury Bench should not be here to listen to it, if they believe the Treasury Bench shouldn't be here to listen to it after they've put it together, Sir, they have a very high disr egard for this Legisla ture. -(I nter je ction)- That's right, he says hallelujah when I said that They don't have a regard for this Legislatur e.

Mr. Speaker, in the system that we have in Manitoba we have a gove rnment, they have a majority and they have an Op position. The Opposition is there to pres ent to the gove rnment the opin ions of the Opp osition side when the gove rnment presents its Budget, when it presents its Throne Speech. They must tell the peo ple of Manitoba what they in tend to do and how they collect the money and they must do that once a year in the Province of Manitoba. Now if we elimi nate that, Mr.

Speaker, and we have a situation where there's no Op position or they're speak in g to a Hous e which is void of the people that basically made the legislation we go to a totalitarian system, Sir, because that's the basic reason for Op po sition and that's the basic reason for the Treasury Bench to listen to the Op position of this Ho use. This piece of legislation really says, Sir, that we are askin g the Treasury Bench that has brought a brand new tax to this province, to have the courtesy to listen to the people from the other side. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Fin ance gets very proud of the fact that he hM talked to businessmen about this Budget I would be willin g to say, Sir , that I have probably talked to mor e than he did si nce the Budget MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honour able memb er is clearly debating the Budget? If the honourable mem ber has some remarks on the motion, he may conclude. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, so I say to the honour able mem ber that I think he should be here to hear the opinions of the mem bers on this side of the busine sspeople that they have talked to.

But the memb ers on the other side choose not to listen to the Opp osition who has taken the time since the Bud get came down, to get opin ions from other people to present to the Hous e for the Ministers to listen to and consider before the vote on this Budge t Mr. Dep uty Speaker, they have not had the courtesy to be here and quite frankl y, I will be very in terested to see how they do vote.

I want the people out there to kn ow that the Treas ury Bench, if they're voting agai nst it, if the govern ment does not believe that at least half of the Treasury Bench should be available to hear the mem bers from the Opposition while the Budge t is being debated, when we have a brand new tax in the Pr ovince of Manitoba. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Spring field.

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 MR. ANDY ANSTETT (Springfie ld): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to comment briefly upon my regret that this debate has even taken place today. In fact, the Attorney-General is sugg est in g that our fi rst question to him tomorrow should be whether or not having to listen to this debate not be a violation of our Charter of Ri ghts in terms of cruel and un usual punish ment.

Cert ainl y an arg ument can be made because it is not a debate which has addressed either the issues of the Budget although an attempt has been made by several mem bers opposite - or really a question of privi lege as it's defi ned under our Rules. Mr. Speaker. I have some concern about the Memb er for Robli n's com ments with regards to myself in that although he heaps fai nt praise, I think he might be in danger of protest ing too much because if he keeps it up som ebody on this side might actually believe it and I' d just as soon they didn't. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Virden talked earlier about mem bers on this side who have some reserva tions about this motion that's been presented by the Opp osition Hous e Leader challenging the Speaker's ruling. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address the question of this motion very specifical ly in terms of what we are talkin g about in this debate tonig ht. Fir st of all, Mr.

Speaker. the motion that was moved was ruled on by the Speaker - the memb er is quite correct, although substantively we did not hear a rul ing from the Acting Speaker this afternoon - by plac ing the motion before the Ho use. he admit ted that the motion was correct as to form. Mr. Speaker, I'd refer you and honour able mem bers opposite to Citation 80 on Page 24 of Beauchesne. Ci tation 80, Subsection 2.

"A question of privilege on the other hand is a ques tion partly of fact and partly of law: a law of contempt to Parliament." That's what we're talking about here, whether or not as a matter of substance the motion and the question raised by the Opp osition Hous e Leader is really a matter of contempt to parliament and is a matter for the Ho use to determi ne. The Honour able former Speaker of this Chamber said that the Speaker ruled. There was a matter of privi lege here. It wasn't a matter of privi lege in terms of the ruling of the Speaker.

There was a matter of privi lege that the Speaker said the House should decide. That's the fir st point. Many mem bers over there were quite concerned and castigated memb ers here when we raised the question of substance. Mr. Speaker, that's the essence of this debate. For those who doubt it, I sugg est that they should be the ones who should do some research in parliament ary practice, not the Honour able Hous e Leader on this side who's demons trated an amazing acumen in the short time he's been in this Hous e. Mr.

Speaker , the Honour able the Leader of the Opp osition is again on his feet cryi ng out the kinds of things he cried out earlier. Oh, he's sitting, I'm sorry. Well, the Honour able House Leader is speakin g. He said earlier. he kn ows reds when he sees them. That should be on the record, Mr. Speaker. That's what he said. He shouted to the Premier of this provin ce, if you want to hold a Marxist meeting, don't hold it in here, hold it in your office. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of Op position contri bution we've been putting up with in this House. Mr.

Speaker, that's my con cern and that's why I' ve chosen to speak on this motion and speak about the privi leges of this Hous e and the abuse of them and the fact that those privi leges have been abused mor e in the last five years in this House by the Leader of the Opp osition than probably any other member and I in tend to document that. Mr.

Speaker, before I get to that subject I sugge st to him that rather than keep his mouth open, he think back to December, 19 80 when he sat in the Prem ier's chair and lectured the Hous e and the Speaker and ordered the Ho use and the Speaker to do certain things with respect to the privile ges of a mem ber and when he's done thinking, he can open his mouth. I sug gest that won't be in a very shor t time. -(lnterjec tion)- Mr. Speaker, the quality of the former Premi er's contri bution in this deba te is at about the same level as the quality of the gove rnment he offered to this province for the last four years.

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from Beauchesne before the one-term Premier in terru pted my remarks. The decision of the House on a question of privile ge like every other matter which the Hous e has to decide, can be elicited only by a question put by the Chair by the Speaker and resolved either in the affirmative or the negative and this question is necessarily foun ded on a motion made by the mem ber. I suggest to those mem bers opposite who said that the question was decided by the Speaker in admit ting the motio n, that that ass umption is inc orrect based on that rule. I quote further,

Section 3 of Citation 80. "It follows that though the Speaker can rule on a question of order ... "- (I nterjec tion )- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Memb er for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Spri ngfield is in tend ing to challenge the ruling of the Chair , then he should do so. If he is purporting to speak on the motion, Sir, I don' t believe that he's speak ing on the moti on. -(I nterjec tion )- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I'm sorry, I did not hear the hon ourable mem ber's remarks. Or der please. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I say if the Member for Spri ngfield in tends to challenge the Chair , he should do so. If he is purporting to speak to the motion then I suggest he's out of order, Sir, on the basis of the rulin g that you have just made. 2592 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Memb er for Spr in gfield on the same point of order. MR. ANSTETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Honour able Op position Ho use Leader and you.

Sir , and other memb ers of the Ho use, that at the beginning of my remarks I said that the ruling made by the Speaker in admitting the motion was certainly correct and I did not dis pute it. In fact, I would commend the memb er for having made that decision consider ing the length of time he's had

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 to be in this House. Certai nly, Sir, I do not challenge either the Acting Speaker's rulin g nor do I in tend to challenge you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I believe the point of order made by the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain is that the remarks were ·not consis t ent with the motion before us. Although we thank the honourable member by way of explanation his remarks, could he conti nue on the main motion? The Honour able Member for Springfield. MR. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, for the edific ation of mem bers opposite, I would point out that I am describ ing for those mem bers who had some doubt as to whether or not mem bers on this side by reviewing the rules, were challenging the Speaker's ruling before supper, that that is exactly what we were not doing. What I wish to do is demons trate hopefully, to some memb ers opposite who may have qualms again about the natur e of this mot ion, that this motion does not have the substance which would cause mem bers in this House to vote for it.

I would not challenge for one minu te the Speaker's Ruling which allowed the sub ject to come before this Hous e for debate; that was emi nently correct. Mr. Speaker , subsection (3) of Ci tation 80 provides and I quote, "It follows that, though the Speaker can rule on a question of order, he canno t rule on a ques tion of privile ge." Well, Mr. Speaker, how are we chal lenging a Speaker's Ruling on a question of privi lege? I commend that Citation to the Leader of the Official Opp osition who just had some concern here about me challenging a Speaker 's Ruling when the Citation says none can exist. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion before us is somewhat removed from the com ments being made by the honour able memb er. I have than ked him for the ind ication and for his enlig htenment and for pointing out those sections to us. Could he confine the remai nder of his remarks to the motion? MR. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to con fine my remarks to the matter of privi lege before the Ho use.

I thought that with a singu lar exception I was addres sing matters of privi lege, in principle, as an in troduction to very specific com ments and I thought with a very singular exception the last hour or so I was one of the few mem bers who was doing so, but I will do my best to be much mor e dir ect to the current question before the Ho use. Mr.

Speaker, the question before the Ho use is the question of substance, the question of whether or not the Rules Comm ittee should, as a matter of privi lege in this Hous e, should as a matter of privi lege consider the advisabil ity of a majori ty of the memb ers of the Treasury Bench being present during the Budge t Debate, being required to be present. I don't think the word, "req uired," is in the motion. MR. ADAM: Does it say that there, in Beauchesne? MR. ANSTETT: "Requiring that a majority of the mem bers of the Treasury Bench be present durin g the Budget Debate." Mr.

Speaker, that's the substance of the question of privi lege; that's the matter which must be decided in this Ho use. Beauchesne, on that ques tion, in terms of the rules to which we must add ress ourselves to determine whether we'd even consider voting for this motio n, provides also in the same sub

section I quoted earlier, Citation 80(3) , "his function, when a question of privile ge is raised, is limiting to decidin g whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the motion, which the mem ber who has raised the question desi res, to move it over priority of Or ders of the Day." That's been done, Mr. Speaker, and memb ers opposite, who suddenly ass um ed that meant that the Speaker had said that for some reason there was an attendance problem on this side of the House, were sorely mi staken. Mr. Speaker , the question before us is not a ques tion of form; the form has been decided.

The motion is in order, it's a legiti mate matter to raise. The question before us, provided for in Citation 84(2) extends to decid in g the question of substance whether a breach of privi lege has, in fact, been commit ted. And that's what this debate is all about. Has a breach of privi lege in this Ho use been commit ted? The Speaker has said only that the motion is correct. Mr. Speaker, let's turn to ou r own rules to address the question of whether or not, in substance, there's been a breach of privi lege.

Page 59, second paragraph provides: "There are privileges of the Ho use as well as members indi vidually. Willful disobedience to orders and Ru les of Parl iament in the exercise of constitu tional functions, in sults and obs tructions during debate, libels upon mem bers, in terference of any kind in official duties." The only one that could, by the fur thest stretch of the im agi nation of the Government Op position Ho use Leader, might possibly be construed to relate to willful dis obedienc e of orders and rules of parliament, migh t relate to our Rule No. 11.

I'm going to try to giv e the mem bers opposite the gr eatest benefit of the doubt in determ ining whether or not there's a matter of sub stance here that is a matter of privile ge. Our Rule 11 provides that "every mem ber shall attend the service of the Ho use and of each Comm ittee thereof of which he is a memb er, un less leave of absence has been giv en him by the House." What does that rule mean? We don't have any ruling s on it. It hasn't been raised before because most mem bers have enough respect for their fellows that they accept the fact that all mem bers can't be in here at all ti mes. 2593 But, Mr.

Speaker, we then turn to Beauchesne where this matter has been raised and we turn to Citation 10 3. Cit ation 10 3 is on page 34, Mr. Speaker, and it refers to the equiv alent rule in Ottawa, Standing Order No. 5 which add resses the same question that our Rule No. 11 add resses with respect to the attend ance of memb ers. Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting Speaker Lamou reux in this Citation and he says, on page 35; "I have suggested that before, but for some reason the mem bers of the Committee have thought that the Standing Or der should not be in terfered with and that it should be allowed to stay.

Accord ing to my in forma tion the last time the Standing Or der was applied was back in 18 77. I would think after all these years that this Stan ding Order should be referred to signal the absence of any in dividual mem ber of the House." Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about here is a rule

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 which the Speaker, the Federal Ho use, has said has not been applied sin ce 18 77 and, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, those on this side who think those in the Opposition are living in the last centur y have jus t had their opini on stron gly reinforced. They have not rec ogn ized the growth in governme nt, the compl ication and development of Executive Branch responsibil ities which prevent Cabi net Ministers from being in the House to the same degree of attenda nce as was avail able prior to 18 77. Mr. Speaker, that's the last time it was applied.

So when we ask the question, is this a matter of substance? Mr. Speaker, if the date on the calendar watch on the wrist of the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain predates 18 77, I might giv e him the case, but not today, not in the 20th Centur y. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the next question, if there's a question of substance to be addressed, is whether or not in this Ho use, in our experience in this Ho use, the situation in the last six days has been particularly better or worse than the experience because it's only an affront to this Ho use, only a contemp t to this Parli ament if the behaviour of this Executive Council is exceptionally di fferent from that of Executive Coun cils in recent memor y. Mr.

Speaker, the Honour able Memb er for Sturgeon Cr eek, who will hear better with his mouth closed, will find that he adm itted less than 15 , 20 min utes ago that his attendance record in this House has not always been what he would have liked it to have been. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't comment on that. The Honour able Member for Sturgeon Cr eek now wants to debate the Budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Cr eek should exercise mor e control over the flagrant mi suse of Budget time by his Hous e Leader and not sugg est that when I wish to speak, I must then curtail my remarks. Mr.

Speaker, the question is: is the attend ance of Executive Council memb ers on this side over the last six days substantially worse than it was un der the previous admin istra tion, or unde r the Schr eyer admin istration, or the Roblin admin istration? Mr. Speaker, I haven't been in this Ho use that long but fortunately I had an opportun ity to be in this Ho use with a lot mor e regu larity than the Leader of the Op position.

I was com pelled, and let me tell you, someti mes it's not the most pleasant experience to sit with the Clerk, and that's not a reference to the Cler k, but rather some ti mes to the debate, for a numb er of years. Mr. Speaker, I was used to observi ng, while I sat in that chair, the numb er of memb ers who were in the Hous e and let me tell you it's not only my opinion but the opin ion of others whose opinion I respect, that the experience in the last six days has been basically, no better and no worse than it was in the last two admi ni s trations of this provi nce. Mr.

Speaker, I would submit on the second criteria that there is no jus tification, no substance to the motion proposed . When the mem ber did propose the motion I noted that he did name a particular Minister and I would point out to him that he gave that Minister cause for a question of privi lege in namin g that Minis ter and ma kin g reference to his lack of attenda nce in the Ho use. I expect a little more from someone who purports to be that kn owledgeable in the Rules that he can make those kinds of contributions in debate and move these motions. Mr.

Speaker, I would expect thin gs to be worse right now in this Ho use, in terms of attendance because the problems we are left are far worse. I would point out to honour able memb ers opposite that there are four fewer mem bers in this Executive Council, sadd led with much gr eater re sponsibilitie s because of the mess they've had to clean up. I would point out that the last governme nt had one memb er in its Executive Council whose sole responsibili ty was to be in the Hous e as House Leader; another memb er was responsible for Fit ness; another Minister was respon sible for Cul tural Affa irs. Mr.

Speaker , with those kinds of portfolio responsibil ities, it's very easy to keep two or three in the Hous e at all time s but with the load these Ministers are carr ying and the problems they were left, I can un derstand why it's possible some mem bers might mi stakenly perceive them to be in the Ho use a little less than they think they should. Mr. Speaker, let's exam ine why, not why the motion was moved, but why the mem bers opposite are so frustrated, why there is no substance to the motio n. Let's examine why.

I' ve giv en you two reasons but I think there's another reason which un derlie s the mood opposite, which make s them so chippy this evening. Mr. Speaker, when we address this question of substance in the matter of privi lege we say, why? Why did they want to di srupt the Budget debate? I can see three people smilin g in the Press Galler y who kn ow the reason. They kno w the reason. For the last six days the Opp osition got no ink and Jack Kuch didn 't say a darn thing ni ce about them - I mean, I didn't hear anyth ing ni ce on CBC radio. Excus e me , Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for making an in dividual ref erence to a member of the gallery. Mr. Speaker, I trust the Honour able Leader of the Oppo sition is not threatening me but is sugges ting that the CBC will do me in. The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition sugge sts that one canno t make silk purses out of sows' ears. Mr. Speaker , I sugge st to the Hono urable Leader of the Opp osition that he should not quote the un in formed source in the Winnip eg Sun, when that uni nformed source last made reference to his Member for Pembi na.

I, too, recall the columns and the reference to the Member for Pe mbina and I consider it unfortunate. If anyth ing, I think the Member for Pembina had a point of privilege with regard to that kind of commen tary. 2594 Mr. Speaker, the real problem here and the essence of this question of privi lege is that there is no sub stance to it and the Opposition has had to raise it because there was no substance to their criticism in the Bud get debate.

I don't pu rport to enter the Bud get debate at this point, but what I want to do is point out that this motion arose just like a mushroom, just like their debate, but a mushr oom that I particularly lik e, mus hrooms called shaggy mane s. They're also called ink y caps and that's what this resolution was; a mush room attempt on a rainy day when they could spring out of the gr ass to try to get them some ink in the local newspapers. Mr.

Speaker, the shaggy mane is a mush room; I do not purport to describe mem bers opposite that way but I do compar e their behaviour as such, and certai nly, their attempt to get publicity for their inabili ty to contribute constructively to the Budge t debate is a charade of the worst order. Mr. Speaker, why did they not get that publicity?

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 Why is this motion ahead of us? Why did we have to have this vehicle thrust on this Ho use during a debate that could have been meaningful, could have provided some constructive criticism, could have offered in the true parl iament ary tradition what the Opp osition, as her Majesty's Loyal Op position, purports to offer? Mr. Speaker, I remi nd the Leader of the Of ficial Opposition onc e again to think back to Decem ber, 19 80, when he challenge s others about their kno wl edge about the parliam entary system. The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition has a problem.

There's no substance to the motion; there's no substance to their const ribution to the Budget debate. Now, sud denly we're faced with in sults on the other side because they canno t make meani ngful contributions. Their problem is that they're going to have to clean house. The Honour able Attorney-General said yes terday there were only half a dozen on the other side who were in telligent and they were all smilin g because each of them thought that they were part of that half dozen. Mr. Speaker, I will submi t that they've got half of a baker's dozen; they've got six-and-one-half.

I would suggest that the Leader of the Opp osition, in addition to the six who are in telligent , is the one who is half smart. Mr. Speaker, their debate tonight ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Member for Stu rgeon Creek on a point of order. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Or der.

I kno w that the memb er was speaking towards the Res olution when he was discussing with the House or explai ning to the Hous e the substantives, etc., and what have you, but basically forget ting there's a Reso lution before us for a vote and that's all past, and he should be talking to the Resol ution or voti ng on it. But when he starts to talk about the personalit ies on both sides of the Ho use, Sir , I don't think that he is talking to the Resolution. I think he should be checked up. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Spring field. MR. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker , I accept the admoni tion of the Member for Sturgeon Cr eek, I concede that the comme nts by his Leader certainly drew me aside and distracted me and I apologize for payi ng any attention to him whatsoever, and I promise you I will do my best never do to so agai n. Mr. Speaker, what we're tal king about is whether there is any substance to the motion moved . Mr.

Speaker, what we're talking about is denyi ng mem bers of the Treasury Bench, mem bers of this Cabine t, the right to attend in their offices, the right to attend to cons tituenc y business on behalf of mem bers oppo site, as well as mem bers of this side like myself. And, Mr.

Speaker, the proof of the fact that mem bers were there, atten ding to gove rnment busine ss, the proof of the pudding, the proof that the motion lacks sub stance, is that within five min utes after it was moved more than half of the Executive Council of this prov in ce was in this Ch amber, they were in this building attending to government busine ss, doing their job. So we now have three basic point s which document the total absence of substance in the motion and, Mr. Speaker, although I suspect there are many more I will leave it at that.

I will leave it at three points because that's three good reasons to stri ke out the motion of the Ho nourable Opposition Hous e Lead er. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate their frustration, it is not my in tent to in any way avoid the Bu dget debate, I want it to continue but, Mr. Speaker, I offer several thoug hts about how we can impr ove the level of the debate and avoid the kind of rancor and obvious time wasting that's occurred in the last several hour s. Mr. Speaker, I think that's of substance to this motion because I would like to avoid this kind of abuse of the Legisla ture's time in the future. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek is obviously dis appointed that six months yesterday he got some bad news but that's no reason to raise a matter of privilege and demand that his successors must sit in their chairs 50 percent of the time. -(I nterjec tion)- Well it's one half, 50 percent of his successors must be here during the Budget debate. Mr. Speaker, there's no grounds for that.

I expect the Member for Sturgeon Creek and the Memb er for Turtle Mou ntain to take a broader road; I expect those mem bers to deal with the Budget Debate, with the economic dif ficultie s that are facing this province, to make constructive sug gestions. Mr. Speaker, if that were happening you'd find 95 percent of the Executive Council in this Ho use but the contri butions, and I dare say, Mr.

Speaker, an unkn own mem ber who spoke a couple of weeks ago about the question of constructive criticism and valuable addi tions to debate and the Attorney -General's comme nts yesterday about the same matter, about the level of contri bution, hit the mark. 2595 So, Mr.

Speaker , the question before the Hous e on this matter of privile ge and the substance of this mat ter of privi lege that caused it to be raised is not the attendanc e of the Executive Council, the substance of this matter of privi lege is the inability of the opposition to do its job, get proper attention in the media for doing an adequate job and the fact that memb ers here were not receiving the kind of constructive criticism, debate on issues, suggestions of alterna tives, the kind of high road contri butions that I used to expect from the Member for Lakeside when I sat at the table, the kind of policy debates, the kind of alternative option debates, that this House has witnessed for most of the last few Sess ions.

That's absent this Session, Mr. Speaker, and that's a sorry comment on the quality of the opposition that faces this gove rnme nt. And, Mr. Speaker, I wish them well in cleanin g house because I believe that a good opposition make s fo r a better govern ment. I'm hoping to see it, I hope I see it sooner rather than later. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, many who begin debates in this Hous e, Sir, say that they didn 't in tend to speak on the particular topic but I'm persuaded, after listen ing to a couple of the contributions from the other side tonight, if they may be gr aced with that expr ession, to say a few words in support of the motion that is before the Hous e because it has to do with the heart of parli amen t. I' ve long since, Sir , come to unde rstand that if

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 one wants to discus s and debate the essence and the heart of the parliamen tary system of this countr y one doesn't listen too long to socialists because socialists don' t understand and don't want a dem ocracy in this countr y, they want thin gs their own way. The reason, Mr.

Speaker, we have this motion before the Hous e today, no one in Manitoba needs any im provident kind of unsoli cited advice from the current and temporary Attorney-General of this prov in ce on free democratic society, ever. -(I nterjec tion)- No, my honour able friend will do well to take that advice kin dly because it's meant in a kindly way, worse could be said. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I was moved to speak tonight because I'd heard the alleged contributions to the debate from the Member for St.

Bon iface who, over 20-some-odd years in this House has never learned that buffoonery is no substitute for in tellec tual debate. So, of course, we're treated on a constant basis to his idea of what parliam ent is about which, thank God, is not what the system is all about. I lis tened, as well, to the recent contri bution from the tem porary Member for Spring field who, for a numb er of years, sat at th is table as one of the Assistant Clerks of this Hous e and was pleased to tell us about some of his impr essions as an Assistant Clerk. Mr.

Speaker, the only thing I can say to the Honour able Member for Spri ngfield, while he's in that tem porary position, is that he was not a great success as an Assistant Cler k and he's even less of a success as the Member for Spring field, from which position, we expect he will be vacated when the next election is called. So, Mr. Speaker , having heard from those two mother-loads of parliamen tary democr acy I suppose we can proceed on with the debate. The purpose of the motion, Mr. Speaker, very simp ly is this and the motion should be passed because it's succeeded in its purpose.

As I sat here jus t before I stood up tonight, I counted 10 mem bers of the Treasury Bench sitting in their place where they should be dur ing the cou rse of a Budget Debate. Even the Memb er for St. Bon iface who usually is tu cked in to bed by this hour was here tonig ht. So, Mr. Speaker, I sugge st that the motion has served its purpose already because it has succeeded in getting the Treasury Bench back in to the Hous e. Mr.

Speaker , we're well aware of the fact that there are a nu mber in the back bench who are preaching for a call because the First Minister has made it known that he's going to expand his Cabi net. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Spr in gfield was preachin g for that particular call tonight. Mr.

Speaker, as I hear those vacant voices on the outer rim - if I may use it that way - of the governmen t's backbench, I may sugge st that they would have as much, I would hope given the in telligence of the Fir st Minister, that they would have as much chance of being in the Cabi net of this provinc e as would a bunch of baying coyotes on the outer rim of some forest on the edge of Winnip eg, because that's about the level of in telligence that they add to the debate in this Ho use. Why is this motion being debated, Mr. Speaker?

It 's being debated because the Executiv e Br anch of this gove rnme nt is showing its dis abuse, its disi nterest in parliam ent debating its purpose in li fe. The purpose in life of parliament, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of many on the other side who will be una ware of this, the purpose of life of parliament is to vote Supply and then to vote Ways and Means for the purpose of raising that Supply. That's why we have such a debate.

That's why we have a debate in Supply that is ongoing at the present time, which has been suspended in order that the gov ernment may move on its motion of Ways and Means to ind icate how it intends to raise the mone y by which its supply, by which its expens es will be paid. That's what parliame nt's all about; it was never in tended to be terribly com plicated. I'm sure that even the Member for Spring field and the Member for St. Bon iface might be able to collect that thought if they think about it for awhile. Mr. Speaker, there he goes home to bed; the Member for St. Boniface.

We are sorry to have kept him up. Before he leaves, Mr. Speaker, may I ask him to raise the same voice in this Hous e on behalf of the in dependent schools that he used to raise 20 years ago when he was so vociferous on this side of the Ho use decrying the lack of act ion on behalf of the government of that day with respect to ind ependent schools? Why is it that voice of the Mem ber for St. Bon iface has been muzzled with respect to aid to in dependent schools as he now sits among his social ist and other friend s in the Cabi net having, Mr.

Speaker, disowned whatever political principle he might have been though t to have had before he joi ned that rather mixed gr oup? Well, Mr. Speaker -(I nterjec tion)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Minister of Natural Resou rces on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER HON. AL MACKLING (St. James): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thought tha t after a good deal of dif ficulty we had established the fact that mem bers of this Ho use should be speaking to the motion that's before us. For the last five minu tes the Leader of the Opp osition has done noth ing of that kind.

I suggest that he be brought to order. 2596 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would indicate onc e again that the motion before us is a serious one and ask all mem bers to speak di rectly to the motion. The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and as you are well aware, that's precisely what I was doing. Mr. Speaker, neither you, Sir, nor anyone else in a free parliamentary democr acy needs any lecturing on the rules of a free democratic parliamen t by the ki nds of Marxis t in terlopers who from time to time find their way in to this House.

If the previous memb er wishes to be in cluded in that group, he's welcome because he makes statements that make him a part of that gr oup. I'm speaking, Sir , to those who un derstand the system and who want to support it, not, Sir, to those who want to subvert it. Mr. Speaker , the very simple purpose of this motion was that on a numb er of occasions during the course of the Bud get Debate which lasts about eight days according to our Rules, there have been more than a numb er of occasions on which the representation

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 from the Treas ury Bench, after all whose Budg et is being discus sed, has been down to one or practically ni l. Now, if my honour able friends want me to be mor e specific and describe what practically nil is, I could make a personal description of what that means. But, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Executive Branch of this current gove rn ment is displa ying a disdain for parliament and is displaying a devil-may care attitude toward the debate that goes on in this parliament with respect to its woebegone Budget.

We fully in tend to debate this Bud get un til the final vote is taken on the eighth day. Mr. Speaker, that does not prevent us in any way, shape or form from callin g the attention not only of this Hou se but to the people of Manitoba to the fact that the Executive Br anch of this socialis t government doesn't care enough about parliame nt, doesn't care enoug h about the debate that's going on here to be here.

But when they're called to account on a motion such as has been presented and which we're now debating by the Ho use Leader of our party, which says that the Rules Comm ittee should be called in order that a rule may be ins erted which would require the attendance of a majority of the Treasury Bench during the di scussion of the Budge t Debate, then we find all of a sudden that they're able to mus ter a majority in the Hous e because they feel the heat on their but tocks. That's why they're in the Hous e tonigh t. There's a little bit of heat on their behinds. They kno w very well, Mr .

Speaker, what their public reputation is in this provi nce with respect to the sanctity with which they regard parliamen t. They don't giv e a damn about parliament. One of the reasons for this motion, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that the current socialis t government of this provinc e while it's shortly in office, does begin to giv e a damn about parliament because that's our job as an Op positi on, to make sure that we call to the attention of the people of Manitoba the kind of disda i n that these left-wingers, while they're temporarily in office, show to the parliame ntary system of this country. Mr.

Speaker, we all kn ow and you kn ow, Sir , that the numb er who support them in a doctri nair e way is very very small and it's incumb ent, I think, upon an Op posi tion which believes in the parliam entary system to point out from time to time how these people, while they are temporarily in office, are bringing in to rack and ruin those fund ame ntal traditional forms of parli ame ntary debate which most people in this country exclusive of them, most people in this countr y hold rather dear; many people in this countr y have had to fight for; and many people in this countr y are still prepared to fight for if the need arise.

So, Mr. Speaker, we bring this motion to the Ho use not neces sarily ex pecting that it's goi ng to carry the majority of the mem bers on the opposite side because they're too narrowly partisan to under stand that what is at stake is much more imp ortant than the New Democratic Party or whatever euphemism the social ists in Manitoba currently apply to themselves or of the Con servative Party; it's much mor e im portant than that. It goes to the taproots of Parliament and, Mr.

Speaker, when an Executiv e brings in a budget, and don' t let this Executive try to tell me or try to tell anyone else that they consu lted with the backbench about the Budge t because, accordin g to their tem por ary Minister of Fina nce, they wouldn't consult with the Federal Govern ment out of whose hip pocket they were proclaiming as they rapped their chests they were taking mone y - at least that's what they said the fi rst time around. The Fir st Minister now is sayi ng, no, no, no, we didn 't do it for that purpose, we did it for sheer revenue purposes.

Nobody here but us socialist chickens and we weren't trying to rob money out of the federal pocket at all. Well, I wish that he, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Fi nance would get their act together. God kno ws if they ever do get their act together, the prov in ce may not be in any better shape, but God kno ws it's in bad enough shape when the act isn' t together. So we, Mr.

Speaker, are happy to debate the Bud get; we're happy to hear the contributions that are made from honourable mem bers opposite with respect to the Bud get even though we don' t agree with them; we're happy to hear even such puerile com ments and contri butions as were made by the Attorney-General who is really not accustomed yet to the parliamentary system. God kn ow what system he'll ever become accustomed to, but he certainly isn' t accustomed to this system and he's certainly not one whose voice would ever stand up in support of the parliament ary system. I need say no more on that count, Mr.

Speaker, except this, Sir, that we do not on this side of the Hous e and we will never take on this side of the Ho use, any in struction from a good numb er of the honour able mem bers opposite with respect to the rig hts and the duties and the respons ibilities and the democratic freedoms of Parliament. Some people happen to kn ow intuit ively what those are. There are very few on the opposite side who have even the most base unde rstanding of what they're all about.

The purpose of this motion is to demo nstr ate to the hon ourable mem bers opposite that the Executive has an account ability to Parl iament and that the Executive should be -(Int erjection)- Mr. Speaker, I hear some odd female voices off in the left corner. I don't know, Mr. Speaker , if that person is preaching for a call, may I suggest that perhaps she should take voice lesso ns fir st. Mr. Speaker, the purpose is to make sure that the Executive Branch of govern ment in our parliame ntary system which is part and parcel of the Legisla tive Branch.

There is only a Cabinet here because mem bers of that Cabi net are elected fir st to their seats in this Provincial Legisla ture. They have a dual res ponsi bil ity; numb er one, to sit in this House as mem bers for their own contituenci es; numb er two, if they are appointed to the Executiv e Counci l, to be responsible to this Parl iam ent and I kn ow that this comes as a wave of new in forma tion to people such as the Minis ter of Fi nanc e and others who have been blocking their way along in li fe for a long time. But, Mr.

Speaker, I kn ow that they must understand the dual responsibil ity, fi rst as a legislator and secon dly as a memb er of the Executive Council. And all this motion seeks to indic ate is that the Executive Br anch of this particular social ist government is not payi ng enough attention to the Legislative Branc h. Mr. Speaker, we are not speakin g jus t on behalf of the Op positio n, we're speaking on behalf of the voiceless backbenchers over there who are expected, Mr. Speaker, by the rulers down in the front row, by the Penner s and the 2597

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 Schroeders and the Parasiuks and all of that crowd who are expected by that, Mr. Speaker, expected by tha t bunch, the aut om at ons to stand up -(Int erjection )- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. It is clearly out of order to refer to in dividual mem bers by their names. The Hon ourable Leader of the Op position. A MEMBER: A lecture on parliame ntary procedure from a turkey who can't even recog ni ze parliamentary procedure. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, the backbenc hers of the current, tempor ary, soc ialist government, to be ins tructed on their parliame ntary duties by the likes of the Member for Fort Rouge, the Member for East Kil donan, the Member for Rossmere, the Member for Transcona, the Member for St. Bonif ace of all people to in struct anybody on parlia mentary usage -really. So I'm sa ying tonigh t, Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Legisla ture as much as on behalf of the Opp osition that they don't have to put up with the kind of obvious disdain that has been shown by their front bench which I suggest, Sir , even though this motion may be defeated will have served its purpose because I can guarantee you, Sir , that notwithstanding the cater waulin g com ing from the backbenc hes, notwithstand in g the rudene ss that is customarily displa yed by the backbench of the NOP , I can assure you, Sir, that there will be, as a res ult of this motio n, a much better representation of this Executive in this Session, in this Budge t debate and in subsequent one s because they kn ow that even though they can use their temporary majority to defeat this motion; even though they may attempt to do that, we can raise the motion again and bring to the attention of their backbenc hers who get precious little attention from them that they are abus ing Parliament and that even if they are struck du mb , the Opp osition will stand up and speak for the rig hts of Parl iam ent at any time.

That's why we have this motion before the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Ener gy and Mines. HON. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, we've just heard a rather hysterical attempt by the Con servative Opp osition to deflect attention away from, I think, a well thought out Budget. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or der please. The hour is 10 o'clock. The Hono urable Member for Spring field. POINT OF ORDER MR. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, just on a point of order to clarify the status of the motion, I would refer you to our Rule 21, Su bsection 3, which provides "That where busine ss other than motion on the Or der Pap ers un der consider ation when the House adjourns the business is termi nated when the Hous e adjourns and shall not be conti n ued the next day or at any subse quent sit ting." So, Mr. Speaker, sinc e we've exhausted our time it would appear we're not going to have an opportunit y to vote on this matter. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Accordingly the hour being 10 o'clock the Hous e is adjourne d and will stand adjourne d until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow 2598

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-57b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 57b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	910a58823e9b187e3b74c78ba23643ac84003e8f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).