I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that under Rule 31(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of public importance, namely, the refusal of the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay) to allow hearings in rural and northern Manitoba on Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act.

Motion presented.

Madam Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind those members wishing to speak to the matter of urgent public importance that they should speak to the urgency of debating this today.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I can think of nothing more urgent than debating this matter today. The fate of the Manitoba Telephone System hangs in the balance. Yesterday, in committee, we moved a motion urging the government to hold hearings throughout rural and northern Manitoba on the issue of MTS, Bill 67 in particular. That motion was defeated by the government majority on that committee.

Madam Speaker, I cannot think of an issue that is more important to rural and northern Manitobans today than the future of our telephone system, and I want to say on the record that many Manitobans that we have talked to in rural and northern Manitoba--and, by the way, we are the only party in this Legislature that has taken the time to hold public meetings throughout the province. At every single meeting that we have held, we have had people say that they wished to have their voice heard. They wish to have a vote on the future of MTS, but, a bare minimum, they are asking one basic thing, and that is to have public hearings held in their own community.

Yesterday, Madam Speaker, on the list that the Premier referenced in Question Period, there were many people from out of town who were registered. I can state for the record that there were a number from my own constituency who registered on the basis that they wished to have hearings held in Thompson. This may be news to members opposite, but Thompson is an eight-hour drive from the city of Winnipeg. People cannot simply drive in for the public hearings. We have to make it available to people in communities such as Thompson.

We were in Portage la Prairie. The response was very much the same in that community, people saying they wish to have public hearings in Portage la Prairie, in Brandon on the weekend, in Neepawa, in Minnedosa, in Roblin, in Virden, in Lac du Bonnet, in Beausejour, and we will be into other communities next week, including Morden, Teulon, Gimli and Arborg.

Everywhere we have gone, people have said, this cannot be happening. They cannot be selling off our phone company when in the election they said they were not going to sell it off. They are asking for one basic thing, Madam Speaker, the opportunity to have their say and, at a bare minimum, to appear before a public committee of the Manitoba Legislature.

Let there be no doubt why the government voted down the motion yesterday. When the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, representing 166 municipalities across Manitoba, puts in a brief that states very clearly they are opposed to the privatization of MTS, we know this is a major issue in rural and northern Manitoba, and if we do not deal with this matter now, I believe we will not have the opportunity in any way, shape or form to be able to do it.

This is our last chance to have a clear statement from the Legislature and try and persuade the government to have those rural and northern hearings. They voted it down yesterday, but that was before they received the brief from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, from the Manitoba Society of Seniors, from many people from their own communities, people from Steinbach, people from the Springfield constituency, people from Erickson, people from Brandon--yes, the few that could make it in. And every rural presenter we spoke to said that people would attend hearings if there were hearings held in their own community. We had one individual present 43 names from Lundar, in the constituency of Lakeside, represented by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), saying that they wish to have public hearings.

All we are asking in this matter of urgent public importance is to give us the opportunity to debate this, to try one more time to get the government to listen to us. This government, if it refuses to have hearings on this issue--as has been done in the past with issues such as municipal assessment, as will be done on the Child Advocate bill that has already been agreed to, as they do with their backbenchers who have travelled throughout Manitoba at public expense dealing with issues, which are important issues but not as final and as drastic in their impact as the sale of MTS.

Madam Speaker, we are asking one thing today. Let the people of rural and northern Manitoba have the opportunity to have their say in their community. Do not make a mockery of the committee process by not allowing rural and northern Manitobans the full opportunity to participate. That is why I urge you to give us the opportunity to debate this today and try one more time before it is too late to change the government's mind to listen to rural and northern Manitobans.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I submit in the first instance that the whole question raised by the member for Thompson is out of order.

The announcement of the sale of MTS was, I believe, somewhere toward the end of April. Legislation was introduced in the House either at the end of May or certainly before the 6th of June, so in terms of urgency, I do not think he can claim a sense of urgency at all. That issue has been before the House. We have had first reading, second reading of the bill.

We have debated the bill in this House through a number of speakers over the past several weeks, and now, at the eleventh hour, because of some grandstanding by the member for Thompson before the standing committee is hearing the public on this bill, he now wants to have hearings all over the province of Manitoba.

Historically, that has not occurred with respect to individual bills that are presented to the House and then heard by committee after second reading stage. The other items that he refers to are in fact consultation processes or are other processes such as the resolution on the constitutional amendment, things of that nature. They were not second reading public hearing process on bills.

Now, in terms of not wanting to hear the public, I think the member is wrong.

* (1540)

Madam Speaker, I, as the House leader, called a public hearing last night, called it again for tonight, called it again for tomorrow morning, called it again for tomorrow night, called it again for Friday all day and, if necessary, will call it again on Saturday, Sunday and Monday until those people who wish to be heard are heard. Now, in terms of people from outside the city of Winnipeg who want to make presentations, we heard 24 presentations last evening, of which, I believe, approximately 20 were from out of Winnipeg. There is ample time; in fact, we even agreed to hear them first before anybody else, despite whether they were in the room or not, in order to give ample opportunity for that public hearing process to occur.

So I submit there is an adequate process in place. There is no urgency for debate, because this matter has been before the House for several months, and it should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to, if I may with leave of the House, to--

Madam Speaker: Is there leave?

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted.

Mr. Lamoureux: I appreciate the opportunity to be able to put a few words on the record with respect to this very important motion that the official opposition has put forward. I can understand, and we in the Liberal caucus appreciate the fact that the public have a vested interest in this particular issue and do want to be able to have a direct input into the whole process, Madam Speaker, and parliamentary tradition--at least in the province of Manitoba--has been that during second reading members of the public can come down to the Manitoba Legislature and voice their concerns. Now, over the last eight years, I have had the opportunity to see some exceptions to that, and at least one that comes to mind in which it was believed the Meech Lake Accord as an issue was important to Manitobans enough that we had to do more than just have hearings inside the Legislature. I think there was merit to that.

If we take a look at the Manitoba Telephone System and the corporation and its history in the province over the past nine decades, there is some valid argument to be made that people in northern Manitoba and in rural Manitoba should be provided a better opportunity to give input. Had the government been more forceful in trying to get opinions from rural Manitoba, I do not think it would be as important an issue today in terms of us having to go out.

What we have seen is a government prior to the election saying no to the sale of MTS, and we really have not provided the forum for Manitobans, given the importance of the Manitoba Telephone System. We have not provided them enough opportunity to be able to say what it is that they feel is important. One of the suggestions that we brought forward to the government of the day back in June was to have that mail-in ballot, if you like, going out to the subscribers of MTS to get some sort of input. The government refused to do that. The government has not done anything to try to get legitimate feedback in terms of the future of MTS and the direction that this government is taking it, and that is, in essence, the concern that we have within the Liberal Party, that there had to have been some sort of public consultation.

I was listening to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and he made reference that the New Democrats were the only party inside the Chamber that went out. Well, I can assure the member--[interjection] Yes. From the Liberal Party's perspective, I can assure you that we have been out in rural Manitoba over the last number of months. We have been talking to a lot of rural Manitobans, and this is an issue that was brought up constantly. It is an issue which Manitobans hold very closely to their hearts in terms of the importance of MTS. We ultimately believe that they are entitled to have direct input. And because the government has been negligent in terms of soliciting that input, I believe then it allows us to look at maybe going outside of the traditions of this Chamber and have some sort of public meetings. It does not have to be the formal standing committee meetings. Nothing prevents over the weekend having two or three MLAs, a representative from each party including the Liberal Party going to Thompson, going to Dauphin, going to Brandon and just sitting down listening to what Manitobans have to say.

Nothing prevents the government from saying, okay, we are prepared to accept that. It can be done in somewhat of an informal fashion to a certain degree. We do not have to send out Hansard. MLAs are all honourable individuals, and we trust that they are not going to misquote things that are being said. But there still is time to do something to ensure that those Manitobans are provided the opportunity to have input and rural Manitobans, because of the impact of this sale, are going to be significantly affected and deserve the right and the opportunity to have that direct input.

With those few words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to have the vote.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has complied with the notice requirement for a matter of urgent public importance set out in our rules. I wish to thank honourable members for their advice as to whether or not the honourable member's motion should be debated today.

According to Rule 31 of the Provisional Rules and Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390, there are two conditions which must be met for a matter of urgent public importance to be proceeded with. First, the subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought on early enough, and, second, it must be shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.

The subject matter that is proposed for debate is the refusal of the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) to allow hearings on Bill 67 in rural and northern Manitoba.

I have not been convinced, based on the arguments that have been made today, that the public interest demands that the business of the House be set aside to discuss this matter today. I acknowledge there are very few other opportunities for the House to debate the matter; however, the member could use his grievance to raise this issue. I am therefore ruling it out of order as a matter of urgent public importance.