Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) for Monday, June 15, 1998, at 9:30 a.m.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' business.
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Leave? Leave has been granted.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if members opposite were prepared to pass this I would not have had to speak, and after what happened in Ottawa recently when the Liberals had all the rules changed on them because there were none of them present in the House, I guess I would not mind charting new territory in this House too. I want to suggest to members that this is a bill that should be supported by all members of this House. It is a very straightforward bill. It is a bill we have brought in, in different forms, the last several sessions of the Legislature, and it would allow us to establish in this province what has been established in pretty well every jurisdiction in this country, including in the federal House of Commons.
That is the position. I would not like to speak--I want to indicate, Madam Speaker, that while we even speak, changes are taking place in a few of the remaining jurisdictions that do not have an elected Speaker. Nova Scotia, for example, recently moved to have an elected Speaker, and I think that was very significant and part of the change that obviously the people in Nova Scotia wanted, as was evidenced by the dramatic breakthrough of the NDP in forming official opposition in the minority status of the government in that province. I believe in Quebec the Speaker is now recommending an elected Speaker, and I want to stress again that this is one way of ensuring that we have in this Assembly and in all Assemblies that adopt this practice, to have a Speaker who has the full confidence of the House.
I want to put this in perspective, Madam Speaker, because I do think that all members of this House could support the bill. I want to suggest that they consider the fact that we used to have a two-pronged process with the appointment of Speakers. The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) will certainly, I am sure, be witness to this, because I think we often tend to lose some historical perspective when it comes to this. It used to be that yes, the government appointed the Speaker. That was the process for many years in this province, but there was also a second aspect, and that is it was traditional for the Premier to consult to the point really, in many cases, of allowing not only a pro forma type of consultation with the opposition but direct consultation. That has not taken place in this House for a significant period of time, certainly the years that I have been here.
I want to acknowledge that it was a process that was not followed by the previous NDP government. There was some controversy in 1986, at that time, although I do believe the Speaker of the day, Speaker Phillips, made a real effort and did a very good job at ensuring impartiality. In fact, I remember on one occasion when I was almost--well, actually I think I was ruled out of order and if I had not withdrawn something I could have been one step away from being ejected from the House. I remember the--well, I never got all the way. Well, there are a few members on the other side who did get kicked out. I have never been kicked out, and I take some pride in that. I do believe it is important to observe the rules.
I remember I was a little bit frustrated, and I remember the minister responsible for I, T and T, the member for Arthur-Virden, was sitting just fairly close to me. He took out a Hansard. He put a highlight over a section, and he put it on my desk. As I was sitting there stewing just a wee bit because I had been cut off by the then Speaker, I read my comments saying what a great job the Speaker was doing at the beginning of the session and how I thought she was very objective.
I must admit, it was an important lesson because you know, at times you can be on the receiving end, and I know even the member for Lakeside has been in his years in this House on the receiving end of rulings that one does not like. You know, the point is to have some sense of confidence in the person who is in the Chair. I really believe that we have lost the balance in this House because by and large over the last number of years we do not have that combination of appointment by the government and consultation. I say that has been something that has been practised by both parties, and I say it leads to difficulty. I say by nature of the process, in and of itself, when you do not have agreement at the beginning over the appointment of a Speaker, you are setting yourself up for difficulties down the line. Confidence, in this case, should be an essential part of the appointment or election of a Speaker.
I want to stress why. We have had a considerable amount of discussion and debate in this House over the last number of years about the role of the Speaker. But you know, this in many ways is one of the most important positions in this Legislature, the Speaker's position. The Speaker in equivalence is equivalent to a judge in a court. The Speaker must be impartial. I want to stress further that if one looks at Beauchesne and if one looks at Erskine May, Maingot, the essential texts which are the foundation of our rules in this House, the fact is that the Speaker has for the last several hundred years been one of the most important officers of the House of Commons, and indeed I will go further. I would say some of the most important evolution in the parliamentary system has come from the evolution of the Speaker's office to the point today where in most Canadian jurisdictions, including the House of Commons, we have an elected Speaker. I say, Madam Speaker, now is the time to have an elected Speaker in this province, particularly given the events of the last number of years.
* (1710)
If ever there was an indication of why it is important, I would say it is now. I could refer members to Beauchesne. In fact, I know I have referenced numerous of the proceedings, numerous of the citations in Beauchesne, but I like to remind people of basic principles of parliamentary law. One of them is to protect. The first principle of Beauchesne in terms of parliamentary law--and it is from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in Dominion of Canada, 1916--is "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority." That is what the essential role of Parliament is all about.
I want to stress that Speakers in the past have put themselves at risk in one of the most fundamental developments in the parliamentary system when the Speaker of the day denied the attempt by the king and the king's officers to arrest members of Parliament in the Parliament itself. Indeed, Madam Speaker, the bravery, one might imagine in those days, of that Speaker who would not acknowledge the demand of the crown of the day to arrest those members of Parliament. If one looks at the federal House, one looks, indeed, at the House of Commons, there is still that tradition preserved, but not having the monarch in the House of Commons. That is one of the most important, and I know the government House leader with his time in--[interjection] It is a whole other topic, as the member says.
I want to stress again: have we not learned the lessons of the last few years here? I would suggest that some of the great difficulty we ran into in the 1996 session related to MTS, I think, would have been avoided if we would have had an elected Speaker. I, first of all, think there would have been some different decisions made. But, you know, regardless of what decisions would have been made, I ask members to put themselves in this position. If all members of the House had elected the Speaker, would there have been the same kinds of questions raised about the objectivity of the Speaker, connection between the government and the Speaker? You know, when the Speaker is elected by all members of the House, members in this House should understand--I mean, we have our constituents. I think every member in this Legislature understands the importance of representing their constituents.
I know that in my own community I represent everyone. I represent those who vote for the NDP; I represent those who vote for whatever party, and I have made a point of that since I was first elected. You have a certain responsibility that you have day in and day out when you are a constituency-based member of the Legislature. That is one of the reasons I have always opposed party lists, the kinds of structures we see in other Legislatures, when you sever that connection between elected official and constituent. But in this House we now have a situation where essentially the Speaker's only constituency, well, if one wants to put it in that term, is one person, in this case, the Premier (Mr. Filmon). One person selects the Speaker.
We saw that in 1995 when there was no consultation whatsoever, although I will put on the record that we went further than the Conservative opposition of the day in 1986 did, when they would not even second the nomination of Myrna Phillips. They would not even give Myrna Phillips a chance. I say to members opposite that I find it ironic that the person that was most responsible for that is the current Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, who refused to second that nomination and yet is probably the only person in this province standing between us having an elected Speaker and having the current situation prevail.
Now I want to stress that because I wish we could have a free vote on this particular bill. If ever there was a bill that should not be a partisan bill, it would be this bill. We need to have this vote now because I suggest to members opposite that we need an elected Speaker's position in place before the next election to make it abundantly clear that after the next election whoever forms government will be bound to bring in an elected Speaker. I want to suggest this, Madam Speaker, we could have said, well, this will be part of our campaign promise. We could have said: if we are elected, we will bring in an elected Speaker's position, but it should not be something that results from that.
Indeed, if we are elected and this government has not brought in an elected Speaker's position, it will be part of our platform. It will be one of the first things--actually, it will be the first thing we do in this Legislature. That is a commitment from our party, but that should not be the basis on which we adopt it. It should not take an NDP government--and I am fairly confident about the next election--but it should not even take the next election before we adopt this.
But, if we are faced with the stubbornness of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the inability of the Premier to recognize the reality of what is happening in every jurisdiction across this country, the reality of the parliamentary system and parliamentary reform, the fact that we now have many years of very successful experience with the House of Commons with an elected Speaker's position, I want to say to the Premier that, if he does not understand that, indeed it will become an issue, and indeed we will act alone.
But I appeal to the members opposite, because one great thing about politics, and as I look around the House, there are a few people who have had the luxury of being on both sides of the House--indeed, it is a luxury. The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has had that luxury. The member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) has had that luxury. It does not seem like a luxury all the time, I must admit. There are other members of this House, and, as I look around today--I have had that luxury--the government House leader (Mr. McCrae), the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans).
You know, one of the things every member of the Legislature should do at all times is to remember what it is like sitting on the other side. I remember what it was like sitting in the government back bench, being a rookie MLA. I remember how important it was for me to make sure I had an equal opportunity, both in this Chamber and in the government caucus, to represent my constituents, as did members of cabinet. There is always a push and pull on that.
You know, I remember when Pierre Trudeau said that M.P.s in the House of Commons were nobodies when they stepped outside of the House of Commons. I would suggest that what happens is MLAs and M.P.s are somebodies when they step outside of the House. Unfortunately, what works in this House is that sometimes within caucuses and even within the proceedings that happen, if you become a nobody anywhere, it is when you are in this building. Not always, and not even necessarily all that often, but it does happen.
That is why I appeal to members opposite to put themselves in the other's shoes here, because one thing about democracy, at one point in time whatever party sitting in government will be in opposition, and at least one of the parties, or if there is some successive party, will replace it in government.
So chances are, as soon as a year, you could be sitting on the other side. I say that, to members opposite and to members on this side, remember what I am saying today. When you are in opposition, you will recognize the need for this bill, but do not wait until it is in your own personal direct interest as an opposition member to bring in this bill. Why not act now when you know it could be you in opposition or back in government? No one can predict the future. Why not act on the basis of the wave of parliamentary reform that has swept this country?
Why not learn from our mistakes? I mention about the circumstances in 1996 which we will never forget in our caucus. Why not do the right thing in this particular case and support this bill, put it to a free vote, and allow us in this Legislature starting, if not this session, perhaps indeed after the next election, to start afresh, to have an elected Speaker and to bring in a situation whereby we will have a Speaker that by definition will have the support and confidence of the entire House, not just one person, the Premier of the day?
I plead with members opposite. You may notice the tone in which we are raising it. I am trying to be as conciliatory as possible, not dwell on the past, to look ahead to the future. I urge members to think of it in the same way. Now is the time to make that move.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): We are prepared to let this bill pass second reading, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Okay. Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House, second reading, Bill 301, An Act to Amend an Act to Incorporate the Dauphin General Hospital Foundation.
All those in favour of the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 303, The Brandon Area Foundation Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Brandon Area Foundation," be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
* (1720)
Mr. L. Evans: Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the bill and the Brandon Area Foundation. The bill itself is fairly straightforward and simply increases the membership of the board of directors by three. The previous bill had stated that the board be made up of "not less than seven not more than nine," and now we are substituting that phrase with the phrase "not fewer than nine and not more than 12." So there is a small increase to the board.
It does give me great pleasure to explain because this is a very important organization, a very worthy organization, one that has existed in Brandon since 1965. I believe it is one of about 81 community foundations in Canada that supports local projects through grants and does it on a fairly low-key level, but they are about to engage in some public relations to become better known and to be more active and aggressive in raising funds. This, of course, is the reason for increasing the size of the board to involve more people in the organization who might help in these fundraising endeavours. In other words, more people to put their shoulders to the wheel, so to speak.
The organization is engaged in philanthropy, as they say, and it is totally impartial. In fact, that is one of its advantages. One of the advantages of the community foundation, Madam Speaker, is that they do not have any special interest, any specific interest, and indeed their funding, their contribution covers a wide range of charitable organizations. They do not have any hidden agenda. They do not have any special agenda, except that their objective is to help worthwhile charitable organizations.
The foundation, in order to be fair about things, accepts grant proposals from various organizations, and in this case they deal with the whole Westman area. It is not just the city of Brandon. I understand they accept proposals from any organization in the Westman area, and once a year a citizen-volunteer group gets together and decides on where the money will go. The only criterion, I understand, for a group to apply is that it be involved in charity and that it have a charitable number. So, if you have a charitable number, then you qualify because presumably you are a bona fide charity. So I guess you would call a foundation sort of a charity for charities. I mean, it is basic; as the term applies, a foundation. It raises these funds. These funds are then available to give to whatever organizations out there that are attempting to serve the community in whichever way.
Just as a bit of background--oh, and I should explain too that the money, the grants that they do raise go into a capital fund. It is the interest from that capital fund that they are able to use to pay out.
I might give some information, some financial information. Since 1967, the Brandon Area Foundation has donated a total of $700,000 to various groups in the Westman area, helping with everything from literacy programs and theatre projects all the way over to Handi-Transit services and, indeed, even community skating rinks. They do want to put their money where it makes a difference, and they have made some very good choices over the years.
The fund today has grown to more than half a million dollars, but they believe that--well, the fund has grown, $500,000, half a million dollars. It is still lagging behind what is happening in some other communities in Canada of comparable size, so they now want to make this effort to go forward and raise a considerable amount of additional money to expand their capital base. A part of that is to increase awareness of their existence. They are doing various things, including a public relations campaign and fundraisers. In fact, they are having a golf tournament today, June 11, as I understand.
It is going to be a very interesting tournament because--[interjection] And it is raining. I know it is raining in Brandon. [interjection] No, the sun always shines here. The tournament is rather interesting, because it is a fund-matching contract. At the tournament, rather, there will be a fund-matching contract signed with representatives of the Thomas Sills Foundation. This is a Winnipeg-based foundation which has offered to donate up to $200,000 if the BAF, the Brandon Area Foundation raises $400,000 over the next three years. So they are given an incentive to raise even more. So it would be a terrific boost to the capital fund that they now have to operate with.
I cannot find enough words to have the praise for this organization. They are low-key in the community. A lot of people do not even know they exist except, of course, those charities that they have helped directly, whether it be Handi-Transit or some literacy program or whatever, but they do have the community interests at heart. They have been impartial. They have done a real good job, and they have certainly strengthened the community and added to the quality of life in the community.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate everyone involved. I do not know all of the organizations; I know one or two. One person that is more prominent, and perhaps the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) would know of this individual, Ms. Mildred Murray, who is head of the organization at the present time. There are other very community-minded people who are involved, and, as I said, this bill will enable the foundation to add three more members. Hopefully, therefore, three more people will work towards raising further funds for the foundation.
So I am sure all members would be prepared to pass this bill unanimously. It is certainly a nonpartisan organization, has done an excellent job and has great potential for future charitable work to help raise the standard of living, to help improve the quality of life in the Westman area. So with those few words, I trust that this bill will get easy and unanimous passage by the Legislature. Thank you.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Brandon East brings to this Legislature this bill respecting the Brandon Area Foundation at a time in Brandon's history when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of new beginnings going on in the Brandon area. It is a very significant part of the province of Manitoba, and we are delighted to be able to assist as a Legislature. I think all honourable members would be delighted to be able to assist the Brandon Area Foundation in spreading its wings even further so that its work can mature, just as the city of Brandon is maturing in these days just prior to the beginning of the new millennium.
In 1882, the city of Brandon became a city, and I always like to point out that there never was a town of Brandon. The only charter Brandon ever had was the charter of the city of Brandon. It became a city when the CPR located its divisional point there.
An Honourable Member: With some controversy.
* (1730)
Mr. McCrae: It is suggested there might even have been some controversy at the time, and that may be so. This beautiful building we work in day after day was also the subject of pretty significant controversy at one time, but here we are honoured as members of this place to come here each day and do our work on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba.
However, Madam Speaker, I adopt all the words that have been spoken today by the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) as if they were my own. I pay tribute to Mildred Murray and the members of the board, and those who might be joining in the future, as well. These are good citizens whose only goal is to seek the betterment of our community, and that is a goal we should be supporting here in this Legislature by passing this bill in the next little while. I think that will probably happen today at this particular reading of its passage.
The foundation has the highest goals in mind, and I speak of the maturing of the city of Brandon. The honourable member for Brandon East and I join in being extremely proud of this particular community, and it is taking its place in Canada, like I suggest few others are able to do. It has been supported so well by its City Council and by its citizens and by the politicians, federal and provincial, over the years. I think that the support has been well placed, because Brandon serves as a hub for very, very significant economic, cultural and social activities for miles and miles around. I mean you would have to go to other centres like Dauphin, for example, to find the types of activities that go on in Brandon and the significance of those types of activities.
So Brandon is one of those places in Manitoba that is extremely significant and being a Brandonite, I simply like to remind my colleagues on all sides of this House from time to time that as Manitoba's second city, there are things that happen in Brandon that are important not only to Brandonites but to others for miles and miles around, and in some cases, much further. For example, the customers of the new plant that is going to Brandon will be found in every part of the world, I suggest, so that Brandon's existence is significant.
With the economic activity, we want to see a corresponding social quality that will continue to increase in significance, and that goes for cultural as well. The Brandon Area Foundation will be supporting charities, those that have a tax number as referred to by the honourable member. I have been told by Mildred Murray that their ability to access funds from other foundations which grant money to foundations will be enhanced with the volunteer activities of its board. This bill expands that board, and at this particular time in our history, that is the right thing to do. I, for one, certainly support the bill, and I have a strong feeling that the support will be unanimous.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 303, The Brandon Area Foundation Incorporation Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.