ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call the Opposition Day motion.
OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that
BE IT RESOLVED that this House condemn the provincial government for seriously jeopardizing the future of our health care system by privatizing home care, making dramatic cuts to Pharmacare, making major cuts to our hospital system and eliminating coverage for such services as eye examinations.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, this is indeed a very serious matter, and I think it is appropriate that this being the first Opposition Day motion under our new rules, that it be on the issue of health care because we believe that there is a crisis in our health care system in this province. It is a crisis that has been brought upon this province not through any plans, announced agenda, by this Conservative Party.
In fact, we all remember the election in which this Conservative Party went around saying, trust us on health care. Who can forget those ads of the Premier (Mr. Filmon)? [interjection] Not the jail ads. We can get into that in another debate, but remember those ads where the Premier went around and said to the people of Manitoba, trust us on health care.
Who can forget? [interjection] For the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), no one is going to forget that, and they are definitely not going to forget it going into the next election because they are going to hold this Conservative Party accountable for not telling the truth to Manitobans.
But, you know, we are dealing with a situation when in less than a year after the election in which they said they would preserve health care, look at what they have done, Madam Speaker. They have announced the privatization of home care, and their cabinet document is very clear. The entire system is going to be privatized.
Madam Speaker, I have never seen what I have seen the last several weeks in this province, and despite all the abuse that has been heaped upon many of the people involved by this government, people have shown incredible courage in fighting against the privatization of the home care system. I am talking about the clients, the clients who have come to this building, both for the hearings and the demonstrations, often in very difficult personal and physical circumstances.
* (1440)
I want to talk about the many Manitobans who came to the public hearings, which were boycotted by this government, who spoke passionately about the need to preserve a public health care system, and, yes, I want to talk about the home care workers, as well, because, Madam Speaker, I have heard all the attacks in this House against the home care workers. I have heard the attacks against the union bosses. We, even on our side, have been subject to the same attacks, most recently with the despicable comments made earlier today by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) against one of our members, but, you know, no kind of personal attack can take away from the very real courage the clients and home care workers and many Manitobans have shown in standing up on this issue.
Madam Speaker, it is a phenomenon, because I say to the members of the government opposite that outside of the 31 members of this caucus, this government caucus, and perhaps their political staff, it is very difficult to find anyone in this province who supports what this government is doing.
It was ironic that Ralph Klein was here a few weeks ago, even Ralph Klein in Alberta blanked on a very similar issue involving privatization of laundry services. What does it take to get the message across to this government that you do not have the mandate and you do not have public support? In fact, the public is saying, smarten up, come to your senses, listen to the people and drop the privatization plan.
Madam Speaker, it is not just the home care issue. When did the government promise the massive increases to Pharmacare deductibles in the election? Was that in those ads, those famous ads? Was that in any of the campaign promises? I have talked to people who are faced with massive increases in Pharmacare costs. A friend of mine, a very good friend of mine is on the Life Saving Drug Program, wiped out by this government and because of the increase in deductible will be paying $1,500 to $2,000 a year for those life saving drugs.
I have talked to people who are victims, a senior the other day in the north end of the city, who said, how can this government turn around and raise my deductible to more than a thousand dollars and she particularly had some very choice quotes--some of which I cannot repeat--for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who went around in the election saying we do not raise your taxes, we are not going to raise your taxes. She told me to bring to this Legislature the fact that what more of a tax can we get, and a worse tax at that, than a tax on pharmaceuticals by raising the deductible. That, indeed, is equivalent to a tax, Madam Speaker, another broken promise.
They have done many other things in health care the last few weeks that bear no resemblance to what they promised in the election. [interjection] The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) talks about nursing home rates. I talked to a resident of St. Vital--and I hope the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) will talk to the same concerns--this woman in St. Vital, she was faced with $100,000 increase when her husband was ill over a several-year period, $100,000 increase because of the previous increases that took place by this government. There are many other victims out there.
But, you know, we are seeing even today broken promises from this government on health care capital expenditures. How more cynical can you get than to go into an election campaign as the first item, the first promise, to say that you are going to put in significant capital investment into such facilities as the Health Sciences Centre and then so cynically one year later turn around and tear up every last shred of those promises. Madam Speaker, there are other issues as well, the eye coverage. We put this in because we believe this is the wave of things to come with this government. We believe that we are headed for more and more user fees. It was interesting that the Minister of Health in Question Period talked about a doctor who believed in a two-tiered health care system. I look to that Minister of Health--and we know where he stands and we know where this government stands--we are headed to a two-tiered system in this province because of the government policies, but we in the New Democratic Party will fight. We will fight to stop the Americanization of our health care system. We oppose a two-tiered system.
But this is more than just a political debate, this is a debate about people. I look at members opposite and I ask them to do what I have been doing in my own constituency, what we have been doing in many areas of this province and just talk to people. I ask the members opposite how they can look some of the home care workers in the face when they walk in here today, how they could have looked some of the clients who are out there in the protests just a few short weeks ago, how they can look them in the face and not have some feeling of compassion for what their fight is about and have some sense that maybe, just maybe, this government made a mistake. You know, Madam Speaker, this government is increasingly getting into the bunker mentality. They are defending the indefensible conduct of some of their ministers. We have the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) making comments about bombs and slashing tires and worshipping at the statue.
I say to members opposite, I say to members opposite, there are two roads ahead on many of these health care issues, in particular I believe in the home care issue, because it is very much a symbol of what is happening.
The one road ahead is being charted by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health, and that is leading this government down to further crises in the health care system, to further and further opposition from ordinary Manitobans who are saying they do not have a right to do what they are doing to our health care system.
But there is another route, and I want to appeal to this government in this, the first Opposition Day motion on such a critical issue. The other route is to sit down and reassess, to listen to people, to talk to people.
We are a small province, a million people. Surely we can sit down and work out many of these difficulties. Surely we can bring Manitobans together to work on the challenges facing our health care system but, you know, it is going to have to start with this government doing a very simple thing, I believe, and that is saying that it made a serious mistake.
It would not be the first time a government did that. It is difficult to do, Madam Speaker, but if a government would just sit down and say, maybe we went too far on home care, Pharmacare and many of the other issues that they are raising in health, I believe there is an opportunity for this government one way or the other.
Politically, I know that if they continue on the first path, they will never get re-elected in this province, because the people of Manitoba will never trust this government again. If they choose the other path, we will fight the political fights another day. But would it not be better to deal with the crisis situation now, would it not be better to sit down, starting with home care workers, starting with home care clients, to work together in this province? Is this the Manitoba way, when we see this kind of crisis and this confrontation and the deliberate confrontation brought about by this Minister of Health, who has been attacking anyone who disagrees with him.
There is a better way. While our motion is condemning the government for its actions, our real intent today in this very serious debate is to say to the government, please reconsider. It is to say to the government, you made a mistake, say to the government, let us work co-operatively in this province to improve our health care system and not take us down the path towards a two-tiered, Americanized health care system, which this Minister of Health, this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this government is doing at the present time.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, it is very sad really that we are rising today to condemn a government and a policy on health which is quite frankly contrary to what they promised the people in the last election. It is also outside of the political rhetoric and outside of the political debates and outside of the Question Period arena.
I hope this is an opportunity for members opposite to have a chance to listen to what the people of this province are saying and to pay attention to the articulate and dignified words that are being stated in this Chamber, in the committee rooms and across this province dealing with something that is very, very important to people, and that is the quality and future of their health care system and, particularly, the quality and future of the home care system.
Madam Speaker, I was personally very moved on April 22 when I had the opportunity to listen to a person named Evan Burns, whom I had met in 1993 dealing with changes in home care at a coalition meeting. In fact, some of the ideas he had, we put in our platform, and the government put in their platform. But Evan Burns, a young, intelligent man who, regrettably, through health, has to use home care and home care workers, made one of the finest speeches that I have ever heard about the belief and the necessity of having a nonprofit, publicly administered home care. He said to all of us--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1450)
Mr. Doer: I am trying to spend some time, so members opposite will listen for a change. I would like the courtesy because Evan Burns--I want the Tory caucus that is heading in the wrong direction on this to listen not to the opposition, listen to the studies and listen to the people--Evan Burns said that they do not want revolving-door home care. They do not want the model that you are proposing, that they do not want a system of profit and Americanization of home care; and, as people who require the utilization of home care, they asked the government to stop, look and listen. They asked the government for two very modest requests: a one-year moratorium and, Evan Burns suggested, a set of public hearings.
Mrs. Duval was another speaker at this meeting, and she went on about the absolute necessity of care that her husband, regrettably, needed after he suffered a major heart attack. She has never been involved in any political party and any political debate at any time in her life, but she talked about the most intimate needs of her husband, the most intimate needs being met by the home care worker that had been assigned to her husband and had worked with her family. She regretted that her husband had to go back to a health care facility, to an institution, because of the health care dispute, but she said clearly to all of us that she understood, and her husband understood, not only the tremendous service that they received from their home care worker and from this Home Care program in their own home, but she also understood, and her husband understood, and said so publicly that she does not blame, and he does not blame, the home care workers for his return to the hospitals. He blames the stubborn minister and a stubborn government that is proceeding on ideological grounds to proceed with profit in home care when, of course, they have no public mandate to do so.
Al Cerilli, speaking on behalf of the seniors of Manitoba, also said that this is a wedge to Americanize our health care system, and they do not want profit in home care and in health care. This deals with the vision that Canadians have of why we are a better country. Canadians have developed a health care system in a nonprofit, publicly administered way that is far superior to any experience we have in the United States. We are at two forks in the road in terms of home care. We have the Canadian way of nonprofit home care services publicly administered by the people, for the people, or we have the American way where we have a competitive system. The member opposite from Rossmere (Mr. Toews), whose close affiliation with Great-West Life favours the American way of profit insurance programs--of course, we know what happens in United States where one-third of their population does not have any medical coverage, one-third of their population is underinsured, and one-third of the most well off is able to receive health care, not on the basis of their health care needs, but on the size of their wallet or the size of their purse.
I say to members opposite: Do not listen to us; listen to the people. The two largest users of home care, who are they? Who are the two largest users of home care? Seniors, who have produced two letters to the government, which we have tabled in this House, that have articulated again that they want to be consulted and that they want the public to have a say in something that is so fundamental to their well-being. The Manitoba league for the disabled. I tabled the letter in this House for Mr. Martin, who talked about the fact that they did not want to privatize home care services. Now they are large users of home care. They want changes to home care. Self-managed home care was a good idea, which we had in our platform in 1995, but the minister said in this House, I have consulted with Mr. Martin. Well, Mr. Martin says, in his letter, never once has the government consulted me about the privatization of home care. The minister then says that the Manitoba league does not understand this issue. The Manitoba league had to send another letter back to the minister and say, yes, we do understand the situation quite well. We understand it because we need it.
Michael Rosner, on behalf of the league, at the meetings that the minister failed to attend, said, and I quote: We have tried private orderly systems, and up until the early '80s we had a private competitive system. You want to look at a competitive model, go back to the evaluations of the early 1980s. We tried a private, profit, competitive system, and it failed us and so we were pleased that the previous government moved it into a nonprofit, publicly administered program.
So the clients do not want it. What about all the studies the government had? Connie Curran says, do not do it. Dr. Evelyn Shapiro, who was on the demonstration project from the provincial government, on the government's own demonstration project, says: It will cost more and will provide less quality of service. The government's own hand-picked advisory committee says: We were never consulted by Treasury Board. We were never consulted and we were not involved in this decision, and the government is making a mistake to proceed with the privatization and profit of home care.
People also know that we do not want a society where four people in the city of Winnipeg, some of whom had presented briefs to the government to proceed with privatization, will become millionaires so 3,000 people can take a 30 percent to 40 percent wage decrease. That is not the type of society I want to live in.
So I say to members opposite, you have heard the briefs from the Mennonite Central Committee. You heard the brief from Father Fred Olds. You have heard the brief from other religious organizations. You have heard the briefs from clients. You have heard the briefs from workers. You have heard the position of the public. You are not moving in the made-in-Manitoba direction that the people want. The public wants changing home care, but they do not want to throw the home care policies and positions into the profit modality. They want to keep home care as an evolving program to meet the needs of AIDS people and seniors, but they do not want this thing to be treated like Ford or General Motors or McDonald's or Burger King.
We believe in a health care system that is nonprofit and administered by the people for the people. We want the government to listen as well. That is what they promised in the election. That is all we are asking for today. Keep your promises. Settle this home care situation, and let us have a made-in-Manitoba solution, as we always have had.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in this, our first Opposition Day. I understand this is our first Opposition Day. It is a tradition that we have now, I think, borrowed from the House of Commons. I worked there for a number of years, and I became familiar with the Opposition Day, and, no doubt, our rules will be altered somewhat from what they have there to suit our particular Manitoba needs here. But I support very much the concept of the so-called Opposition Day. I guess it replaces some of the other traditions that we have had that have sort of maybe outlived their usefulness in favour of this type of forum for the expression of opinion on the part of members of this Legislature. I very strongly support that. I am glad for that change in our procedures here. I do not know how many days there are in a session devoted to the opposition, but whatever number has been agreed upon, I support that because that is what this is about. Parliament is all about talking, and Parliament is all about exchanging points of view, which brings me to the next point.
I think we are entitled to differ. We are entitled to have philosophical differences, and we should have some respect for each other when we have those differences. I respect honourable members' opposite rights to have their points of view and I hope they respect my right to have mine. Mine is based, I hope, as will the performance of our health care system be based, on results rather than philosophy.
Honourable members opposite have been honest enough to come clean and line up with their friends and say, this is a philosophical issue. We know it is a philosophical issue for them because they throw all the buzzwords in when they make all of their comments. I believe they believe their own rhetoric, and that is okay, Madam Speaker. It is quite all right with me because they have practised it, they believe their philosophies and there is a rhetoric and there is a buzzwordism that goes with it, and honourable members opposite engage in that all the time, and it is okay. Two-tiered American-style is what I am talking about, language like that that they have imported into their vocabulary to help portray an image that is somehow sinister and horrible to everything that is done by anybody but themselves. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1500)
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member implied that bombs and slashed tires--
Madam Speaker: On a point of order?
Mrs. McIntosh: --are not real. They are real. We experienced them in our own household. Thank you.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have not dealt with the point of order by the honourable Minister of Education, and I was on my feet trying to maintain order once more today and I will not tolerate it again. You want the proceedings to proceed, then let us have this Chamber act in a responsible manner and have decorum in the Chamber.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
An Honourable Member: Both sides.
Madam Speaker: I am speaking to both sides.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: This House is recessed, and I would ask for a meeting of both House leaders in my office immediately.
The House recessed at 3:02 p.m.
________
After Recess
The House resumed at 5:12 p.m.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, prior to the recess, I attempted to rise on a point of order regarding comments made by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), who said both from her seat and also on her feet that members on this side of the House support bombings, slashing tires. At one point, she went so far as to say that members on this side of the House support murderers.
I do not know in which context the member was referencing that, whether it had any reference to do with many of the home care workers right now, whether it was aimed at any of us individually, but, Madam Speaker, I have never heard comments that are more unparliamentary in this House.
Even the Minister of Health, who was expelled from this House, Madam Speaker, and I would refer you to the debates and proceedings from 1987 in which the Minister of Health at that time was expelled for comments accusing members of the Legislature at that time of staging violent demonstrations, encouraging gangster-style violence. That member refused to withdraw that and was expelled from the House.
Madam Speaker, these comments are just absolutely unbelievable. To accuse members of this House, any member of this House, of the statements that were made by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) is beyond belief. We may have our differences. We may have heated differences, but there has to be some basic level of language, of respect for members.
There are times when we all make statements that are perhaps things that we might regret afterwards, but I have never heard comments made of this nature, of this seriousness, and I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you take under advisement the comments that were made by the member, and I would ask that the Minister of Education unequivocally apologize to every member of this House for what were very clearly, absolutely unparliamentary statements on her behalf.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, when the House became so raucous and disruptive, I had not even dealt with the point of order. I was attempting to clarify, indeed, whether the honourable Minister of Education was up on a point of order. I had not even established that at that point at time, and, unfortunately, the behaviour in the House was, in the opinion of the Speaker, so disruptive that I had no option or no alternative but to recess until saner heads would prevail.
I would also like to remind the honourable Minister of Education and all members in this House that when you are on your feet on a point of order, as soon as you are recognized, to identify that it is a point of order. It is very difficult for the Speaker to determine why you are on your feet once you have been recognized.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I think all of us will agree that this has not been a stellar day in the history of the Manitoba Legislature. The kind of things that have gone on today from both sides of the House have been unbelievable, to use the word of my honourable friend for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
I was not present, Madam Speaker, at the very tail end when you recessed the House but was present for all of the time earlier than that. The Minister of Education can deal with the issue herself, but having had a personal experience with regard to a strike in which the life of her husband was threatened, the attempt to bomb their own home are significant issues in the life of the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) which are not easily forgotten. To tie, I suppose, support for one particular group in society over another or something of that nature may have provoked that incident, but she can speak to that herself.
Madam Speaker, I also wanted to talk just for a minute with respect to the actions of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), who clearly, in front of, plain view of the entire House, stormed across the Chamber into the space in front of the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have to interrupt the honourable government House leader to ascertain whether you were speaking to the point of order which the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has just addressed, because that was I believe why I recognized you, or whether you are now wishing to raise a new point of order, because I must deal with each individual point of order as it is raised.
Mr. Ernst: It is now another point of order, but, Madam Speaker, they all form part of the milieu today that caused the difficulties and caused the recess of the House. So, if you want me to raise it as a separate point of order, I will.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and then the comments made by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I will take the--
Mr. Ashton: I guess, Madam Speaker, if I can just clarify, I was raising a point of order based on the statements made by the Minister of Education. I am requesting that she apologize to the House for those statements. I appreciate that you are taking this under advisement, but it is a separate point of order based on the statements made by the Minister of Education.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I indeed will take the matter under advisement to research Hansard, and I will study the transcript carefully and report back to the Chamber with a ruling.
Point of Order
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, on a new point of order, and that deals with the matter of the actions of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), who earlier today stormed across the House, down in front of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and proceeded to have an exchange, primarily verbal, but did begin to shake her hand and her finger against the Minister of Health, which I think clearly violates the House and the separation of opposition and government by utilizing the area between the benches as a sacrosanct area, if you will, at least by precedent, if nothing else. So I would ask you to consider that matter also.
* (1720)
Mr. Ashton: Yes, on the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I would point out that this matter is being raised now, coincidentally, several hours after it took place, not at the first opportunity. I also find it unfortunate that the government House leader did not reference the context whereby comments were made by the Minister of Health, redbaiting comments which were taken by some offence by the member for Radisson.
Indeed, I think it was obvious to all members in the House that there was a conversation that took place between those two members, but I wish the government House leader would put into context exactly what happened, because it was a conversation that began with the Minister of Health making comments, as he has done on other matters but, in this case, redbaiting comments, which are not only not acceptable to the member for Radisson but to many members of this House.
This is a very serious matter for us. We believe that members of this House have to be able to express their opinions without redbaiting, without the kind of unparliamentary language I referenced in the previous point of order. Not only would I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the government House leader does not have a point of order, I would suggest that if he truly was to deal with the real disruption in the House, he would have got up and referenced the comments made by his Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) earlier in Question Period today, which indeed were the basis of the discussion that took place between the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the Minister of Health.
Mr. Ernst: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I listened carefully to the comments he put on the record. I heard the position put on the record by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I will indeed take this matter under advisement, and I will report back to the House with a ruling.
Mr. Ernst: The member for Thompson suggested that I should--
An Honourable Member: Not a further point of order?
Mr. Ernst: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have just advised the honourable government House leader that he had ample opportunity--
Mr. Ernst: Very well, Madam Speaker, on a new point of order.
Madam Speaker: Procedure generally dictates that each side of the House has an opportunity to put their views on the record on a point of order, and I have advised that I will take that matter under advisement and report back to the House.
Point of Order
Mr. Ernst: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On a new point of order.
Mr. Ernst: That is correct. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) suggested that we put in context the matter in which the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) had a confrontation.
I had hoped that we would not degenerate into that kind of activity, but I am quite prepared to put on the record the comments of the member for Radisson.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would have to remind the honourable government House leader that indeed he is speaking to the same point of order. The matter raised in the honourable member for Thompson's point of order relative to ministers put on the record by the Minister of Health I believe was raised in Question Period. I will research as a point of order, and I advised at that time that I would indeed take that point of order under advisement and report back to the House, so I now have three matters that basically relate to the incident in Question Period to report back to the House on.
Point of Order
Mr. Ernst: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker earlier referred to the actions of the member for Radisson. I now wish to refer to the language used by the member for Radisson.
During the time leading up to the recess of the House, the member for Radisson clearly, from her seat, witnessed by a number of members on this side of the House, referred to members on this side of the House as fascists and Nazis. That is the context in which the confrontation took place.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, indeed once again the government House leader did not raise this matter previously, and I also heard the comments that were made by the member for Radisson, and I heard the exact words she said, which are: How would you like it if we called you Nazis?
Madam Speaker, this member, this Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), I ask you to recall what he stated on the record. I have been in this Legislature for many years. I thought we had finished off the days of redbaiting and McCarthy-type tactics in this House. It is not acceptable for members of this House--this is not the 1950s. This is the 1990s. Members of this House should not be subjected to the kind of name-calling that the member for Radisson has been subjected to continuously since she has been a member of this House. If the members opposite cannot deal with the issues that we raise on this side, they should not stoop to that kind of personality attacks.
I think the government House leader should not be raising this matter as a point of order. He should be asking his Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to apologize to the member for Radisson for his totally inappropriate comments earlier today in the House.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On the same point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I just wanted to remind all honourable members in this House that in the opinion of the Speaker enough points of order have been raised. I will hear the honourable member for Inkster on this same point of order and would recommend strongly that we get on with the business and the order of the day. We must deal with a motion before 5:30, and I must determine what the will of the House is.
Mr. Lamoureux: We appreciate the manner in which you have tried to put this issue to rest, and ultimately there was misbehaviour on both sides of this House which we would state, but, in essence, the issue of the day was to debate the home care services. Hopefully there will be leave of the Chamber that would allow us to continue debate for this afternoon, and that would be our recommendation after these points of order have been dealt with.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. If I am to understand the honourable member for Inkster correctly, he was not speaking to the point of order that I must deal with now. I will take the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader under advisement and report back to the House.
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: I do not know if I am rising on a point of privilege or a point of order. I will ask you maybe guide me in what is correct here. I feel, Madam Speaker, that there is a point of privilege for me that needs to be cleared up and maybe could be done as a point of order.
Madam Speaker: I have advised the House that I will not entertain any further points of order on the matters that ensued to cause the disruption in the Chamber today, and I would ask the honourable Minister of Education to identify whether she is on her feet for a point of order or a matter of privilege?
Mrs. McIntosh: I believe technically I probably was rising on a point of privilege and said in context what was said there and in my remarks. Also, I do not know, Madam Speaker, until I tell you what I was wanting to say and how you would rule on.
May I raise it as a point of order, and then you can tell me if I am out of order?
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, on a matter of privilege then, I would like to indicate that as it has been said this is not been a stellar day for the House, but I do think it is important to clarify for the record some of the allegations made against me as a member in terms of the privileges of the House.
Madam Speaker, when we are trying to listen to a debate that occurs in the House and a point is being made by a member and accusations are hurled across the floor that may be picked up by Hansard that are untrue, is it my privilege to correct those across-the-way comments with a statement of fact and not be subjected then to what has happened since that time?
Madam Speaker, I think everybody in this house knows what I was referring to, including the members opposite. I must correct, the bomb was not thrown at her home, it was thrown at the office but there are police records and so on that will verify what we are saying. The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) was also similarly affected.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty trying to follow the comments made by the honourable minister. If she indeed is on a matter of privilege she should be speaking to the fact of the manner in which she feels her privileges were violated.
* (1730)
I believe she asked a question of the Speaker in her earlier comments as to what correct procedure was, and I would suggest to the honourable minister that if she feels that somebody has put something on the record that she is displeased with, she should at that point in time stand on her feet on a point of order, and then we can deal with it correctly procedurally.
I would now ask the honourable Minister of Education that if she indeed is on a matter of privilege, that she express how she feels her rights as a member of this Assembly were violated.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I came to this Chamber today prepared to listen to a debate, and--
Point of Order
Mr. Ernst: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, is there a willingness of the House not to see the clock until six o'clock?
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable government House leader. Is there willingness of the House not to see the clock? [agreed]
Order, please. Can I ascertain whether there is a time limit to be extended or whether it is open.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I believe it was until six o'clock.
Madam Speaker: Until six? Agreed? [agreed]
I thank the House for the clarification.
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: I had understood that this afternoon we would be listening to debate. I was here listening to a debate. I was listening to a speaker, trying to hear what that speaker was saying. That speaker made reference to remarks made by a member opposite in her inaugural speech. When that occurred, the noise from the other side was such that my ability, my right, to hear the debate was taken away. More than that, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) then, in response to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) quoting the member for Radisson's (Ms. Cerilli) inaugural address, said, you people are antiunion just like you say things about bombs and slashed tires.
That, I was afraid, Madam Speaker, was picked up by Hansard. I rose on a point of order to correct that as I believe was the correct thing to do, to say that indeed bombs and slashings do occur, and there are many, many, and the police records are clear, the court transcripts are clear, and they were directed against me, they were directed against the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and other people, not in connection with this strike at all.
That interrupted the debate and it resulted in a whole series of things, including the things said by--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have heard nothing in the comments of the honourable Minister of Education, with the greatest respect, that would lead me to believe this was a matter of privilege. What I am hearing is a regurgitation of the three points of order that have been extremely well addressed in this Chamber today and which will do nothing to continue to enhance decorum in this Chamber.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The motion before the Chamber is, it has been moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would solicit if there would be leave of the Chamber to allow for the debate to take place that was lost as a result of the recess, if there would be leave of the Chamber to allow that to occur.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe the honourable member for Inkster is trying to clarify what was previously agreed to. My understanding is that what was agreed to is that I would not see the clock and that additional time would be extended till 6 p.m.
Now, is there willingness of the House to continue debate until 5:55 p.m., until such time as then the Speaker will put the motion? Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? I will ask once again. Is there leave of the House to continue debate for 20 minutes, till 5:55, to allow additional comments to be put on the record regarding the motion? At 5:55, the Speaker will ask the questions.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, if it is to continue debate until five minutes to six and then put the question, there is leave from the government side.
Madam Speaker: There is leave?
Mr. Ernst: Yes.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable government House leader.
Mr. Ashton: On House business, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask if there would be leave to add the time that was lost because of the recess and the points of order. We have numerous members of the House who want to speak to a very critical issue, that of the situation in our system. We are quite prepared to come back on another day, reallocate the time, sit during the mornings, et cetera, but we should not be denied our right to speak on this important issue because of what has happened this afternoon, particularly the incident that we dealt with earlier, involving the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh).
I would ask, Madam Speaker, if there is leave to provide the equivalent amount of time so that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and many members on our side can address this important issue.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, there is no leave.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied to have debate continue on the Opposition Day motion beyond 5:55.
Mr. Lamoureux: Actually, Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) was finishing up his speech.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health has seven minutes remaining.
Mr. McCrae: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, you are in the situation because leave was not given to extend the debate. The rules state that the vote should take place half an hour before the hour of adjournment. We extended the adjournment hour till six o'clock. We are in the situation, unless the government gives leave to extend the debate, we have to have the vote now, which means that the member for Inkster and many members on our side will not have the ability to debate. So I would ask for your ruling on that. We are in a position now that unless the government accommodates this matter and brings it back on another day--and we are willing to negotiate the time and the place--we will lose the opportunity to speak, and we will have to vote at this moment.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I believe the record will clearly show that leave had been established to have debate ensue and continue up until 5:55, at which time the question would be put.
Mr. Ashton: Just on the point of order, I want to make it very clear, Madam Speaker, we did not give leave to cut off the debate at 5:55. In fact, the leave was given to extend the time till six. Unfortunately, we are in the situation that our rules require a vote half an hour before the hour of adjournment. So we should either have had the vote at five o'clock, or we should have it, if we have a new adjournment time of six, at 5:30.
Madam Speaker, I once again ask that you clarify the situation, appeal to the government benches to give us the opportunity to debate this fully, because that is what we need. We need to debate this issue. We are willing to come back at another time to do it if necessary.
Mr. Ernst: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter was that I stood up here just moments ago to clarify the situation. To continue debate until five minutes to six at which time the motion would be put is what we gave leave for.
We denied leave to sit beyond six o'clock or to make up the time that was lost earlier today. For that much, leave was denied, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am checking with the table officers, and, to the best of my recollection, no leave had been denied to continue debate till 5:55 p.m., at which time the Speaker would put the question.
* (1740)
If the honourable opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) is now stating that leave was denied, the Speaker will have no alternative but to put the question now.
It has been moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the honourable member--
Point of Order
Mr. Ernst: I wonder if you might entertain a two- or three-minute recess while I have a conversation with the opposition House leader.
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to have a two- or three-minute recess so that the two House leaders can have a meeting? [agreed]
The House recessed at 5:41 p.m.
________
After Recess
The House resumed at 5:43 p.m.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, in an attempt to resolve this issue, I wonder if there is leave of the House to have the Opposition Day motion remain on the Order Paper, which would, at some subsequent date to be negotiated between the other House leaders and myself, have a continuation of the debate or a furthering of the debate at some later time.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to have the Opposition Day motion remain on the Order Paper and to have a date identified by agreement between the House leaders at some later date? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker: This House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).