* (1700)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business. Proposed Resolution, Resolution 2.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that
WHEREAS the current provincial government has adopted the practice of bringing spouses on national and international trips at public expense on some inappropriate occasions; and
WHEREAS when asked directly about his own spouse's expenses to travel with him to South America in 1996, the Deputy Premier said that she had been asked to attend on behalf of the Pan Am Games; and
WHEREAS it was later found that the minister's office had approached the Pan Am Games Society; and
WHEREAS at the same time, the then Minister of Northern Affairs indicated that it was his understanding that spouses' commercial tickets should never be paid for by government; and
WHEREAS in the 1980s the policy on spousal travel required that specific and formal approval be obtained from the Premier or his designate, but that policy has been loosened under the current provincial government so that now cabinet ministers may, but are not obliged to, get the advice and consent of the Clerk of the Executive Council for spousal travel; and
WHEREAS since there is clearly confusion on the part of some members of the provincial cabinet over what are and what are not acceptable spousal travel limits; and
WHEREAS there must be greater accountability on the matter of spousal travel.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider amending the General Manual of Administration to make it clear that publicly paid spousal travel is not normally approved, and that all approval for publicly paid spousal travel must be accompanied in writing by the Premier; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to implement legislation to require that all publicly paid spousal travel be declared on the Conflict of Interest form filed by all members of the Legislative Assembly.
Motion presented.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, integrity and forthright accountability on the part of government at the highest levels is a value that is extremely important in any democracy and not any less so in this one. We have all been at many doorsteps in the past number of years and heard from those doorsteps the general level of low esteem in which elected officials are held. When elected officials are in a position to make decisions that benefit themselves or their spouses--and in the process of doing so are not forthright with the public about the reasons for those decisions and then invent excuses and other pseudo explanations for their behaviour--it simply brings the elected office in which we all have a role into even lower esteem and repute on the part of the general public.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, during the last summer of 1996, the summer period, there was a very serious example of a cabinet minister travelling with his spouse and then attempting to mislead the public about the nature and purpose of that travel and the auspices for that travel. I am sorry that we have to bring forward this resolution. In fact, publicly paid travel for spouses of cabinet is a metaphor for the spending priorities of this government which has a history of rewarding friends, associates, and allies. Remembering people like Barb Biggar and Mike Bessey, civil servants who have done very well by doing good I guess is the old song, while programs that Manitobans need are cut and curtailed. Things like food allowances for children are cut by $65 a month. Why would that matter? So long as we could travel with our friends and keep the company in which we have become accustomed.
So we question a policy which justifies and legitimizes spousal travel for events, like for example, the Taiwanese Trade Association Conference in New Brunswick, while forcing social assistance recipients with children under six to go out and find work, and if they cannot find work, to face a cut to their social allowance.
Spousal travel expenditures are a significant concern because in the process of trying to defend the indefensible, the Premier as well as other members of his cabinet, denied that there had been major changes in the written policy. They said no, there has never been any changes. Madam Speaker, 1980, January 1, a policy came into place which said Part 3(b)(13) Travel. Advance Treasury Board approval is required for a civil servant to travel with his or her family on government business or on business at government expense. 3. Advance approval from the Premier or his designate is required for an MLA or minister to travel with his or her family on business at government expense.
Very clear, the policy is four points. It is extremely unambiguous. Very easy to understand. Now what was the nonchange that took place, Madam Speaker? Well, the nonchange that took place in October of 1993, PA 1127 was to replace that very simple and clear policy with three pages of various kinds of provisions, none of which even mention spousal travel on the part of ministers--not even mention. All it says is that out-of-province travel should be authorized only when it is of a high priority, relative to the function of government, the mandate, the department and the goals of--and I love these words--corporate government. Corporate government. We might as well say government of and by the corporations.
So this nonchange is one of the strangest nonchanges that I have ever seen, in my years as a civil servant or as a public administration official, where four points are replaced by a page or two and where words that are in one section disappear in the new section. That, somehow, is not, according to our Premier, a change. I think it is very clear that there was a change. The change was, specifically, to enable ministers to approve the travel of their own spouses with them at public expense when they thought that this was a good thing related to government priorities.
Now it is a very interesting ability that has been defended here. First of all, we are supposed to accept that it is a good thing to travel with your spouse, but only, apparently, if she is a woman, because we did not hear any defence, any kind of requirement, for having men around at ministerial functions where the minister is a woman. The defence was always in terms of the appropriateness of having women around when the minister was a man, and so there were spousal programs.
An Honourable Member: What is your point?
Mr. Sale: Well, the member for River Heights says what is my point. That is the member for River Heights' problem. He could not see a point if it was right in front of his nose. The member is a constituent of mine, Madam Speaker, but I despair, I despair sometimes.
An Honourable Member: He voted for you.
* (1710)
Mr. Sale: Well, he may have voted for me in a momentary lapse, who knows.
So what were we told about this travel? We were told, first of all, that the Pan Am Games Society had just heard that Mrs. Downey was going to South America and said: Hey, I think she would make a great rep; I think we should phone up the minister and recruit her to represent us. Well, that is what we were told. That is what the public was told when he came down the airport ramp, right? But a little while later the Pan Am Games said no, no. No, no, that is not what happened. What happened was the minister's office called us three weeks before he left and said: Can we negotiate a role for my wife because I would like to take her with me?
An Honourable Member: What is the point?
Mr. Sale: What is the point? The point very simply is you do not lie to people when you are coming down the airport ramp and tell them someone invited your wife to come when they did not, and if you do not understand that point, you have a serious problem.
Now the minister is a man from rural Manitoba, and he knows how to dig. So, once he got himself in trouble in terms of who invited his wife to go there, he tried then to defend the notion that she had achieved some remarkable good, in which case he tried to then tell this House that her presence had resulted in securing travel of some 15 Argentinian travel representatives who were coming here, by golly, to put Manitoba on the map. Well, we phoned up that travel association and said: We hear you are coming to Manitoba, that is great; we are glad to know that; when are you coming? They said: Oh, well, it is kind of in the early planning stages, I think was the phrase. We are going to have a meeting and we always consider a trip somewhere in the world each year as a kind of highlight of our year's planning for our women travel operators, and we have put Winnipeg on the list of places that we are considering.
So this sure thing, 15 women coming here to put Manitoba on the map, turns into an agenda for a meeting at which Winnipeg was one place among a number of others, and we hope they do come. I do not know whether they are going to or not. I do not know whether the minister knows. But if they come, I hope they will, and I hope we will all have a chance to welcome them. But the minister, instead of simply saying the truth, which was: We met some women travel operators and they are thinking about coming here, said: We have secured their coming here for sure, and this has justified the first story, which was that the Pan Am Games had invited her to go in the first place. That was not true either.
So why do we need this policy? Madam Speaker, we need this policy because all political people are in a position to do themselves benefits if they have the power in their office as ministers to make decisions about spousal travel. That ought not to be the case, not just for you, not just because you misused that particular power, but it ought to be the case for all of us because there is a requirement for accountability that we ought not to be able to advantage ourselves behind closed doors with no one else knowing what is going on. That is the point of this motion. It is to be able to ensure that, basically, not only will the minister plan in advance with a real reason for taking his spouse or her spouse along, that there will be a real job for that person, and that the Premier has agreed that this is a reasonable thing to do, so there is public accountability.
The second part of the motion, which is just as important, is that okay, fair enough, there may be occasions in which spousal travel is justified. We have never argued that. That has never been the point. The point is that it ought to be transparent so that when you or I file our conflict of interest forms, we ought to declare if we have had the advantage of a family member going with us to some event or other at which public funds have been expended, not because there is anything necessarily inappropriate but because transparency and openness is what the public expects and what the public has a right to expect.
Now, in terms of the question of defence, the Premier in particular I thought was very, very sexist, very, very sexist in his defence of this particular practice as used by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey). He made the point on CBC that there were some functions for which attendance by spouses was a strategic benefit. That may be the case. The Premier said that spouses can help smooth the way for constructive personal connections. The quote which I found disturbing: At the end of the day, he said, to get a couple of extra people there so that when you are entertaining, you are not just men in suits that are trying to entertain these people who bring their own spouses along to all of these events. I mean it only makes common sense.
Well, it may make common sense to the Premier, but I am sure that we might reasonably ask, does Don Mitchelson accompany the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to conferences and provide the function of the spouse who attends the spousal program? Did Mitch Vodrey take a few days from his practice to accompany the then Minister of Justice on her ministerial conferences at government expense so that he could help with the spousal programs and smooth the way when we are negotiating around drinks at night?
It seems to me there are a lot of problems with a premier who defends the notion that we need women around at night for decorative purposes but somehow men are not mentioned. I think the Premier should consider his defence. It is a double standard that I am sure he is not comfortable with on reflection.
Madam Speaker, I hope that all members will support this resolution, even though I know they scoff at it. If they stopped and thought about it, they would support it in a minute because what does it do? It allows them to justify clearly when they wish to take their spouse with them for good purpose, and they can defend it because the Premier has agreed to it. They are so confident of the rightness of taking their spouse along that they file this in their conflict of information statement so that they disclose for everyone to understand that this was something they did because the purpose was defensible.
So why would this resolution not find support, unanimous support in fact, from all members of the House because it puts on the record decisions which ministers feel are defensible and which the Premier of the day, whether it is an NDP Premier or Conservative Premier, can sign his or her name and say this is a defensible kind of travel, and we are going to reveal it for all the public to see if they wish to check the conflict of interest form, and feel confident that, indeed, the public will understand that this was a good thing to do and it was done in Manitobans' interests instead of, first of all, suggesting that the purpose of the travel was something other than it really was, suggesting that the invitation for the travel came from some group other than it really came for, and suggesting that the results of the travel were something that in fact has not happened or been confirmed as yet, though I am still hopeful that we may be able to welcome those travel representatives at some point to our good province.
So instead of that terrible web that got woven over those five or six days of Question Period, we would have a simple declaration. The Premier says it is a good thing to do. The member declares it on the conflict of interest forms. It is all in the open, end of story, no press, no problems, Madam Speaker. So I urge all members to support this resolution towards transparency and accountability.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, unlike the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) who claimed he was not pleased to be speaking about this resolution today, all the while smiling like a Cheshire cat, I, on the other hand, am very pleased to rise in my place today to address the resolution brought forward by the honourable member for Crescentwood. The reason for my pleasure is not so much for what this resolution says but for what it reveals about the honourable member for Crescentwood and some of his colleagues opposite who have a consistent problem. That problem is they are unable to address real issues in this place, because the real issues of importance to the people of Manitoba are not the issues addressed in the resolution by the honourable member but are those issues addressed in the budget brought forward by our colleague the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).
* (1720)
Madam Speaker, as the honourable member proved himself to be nothing more than a railer in this place, one who can do nothing but rail away at issues that have already been dealt with in this House in a very public way, the honourable member, I guess, because he felt this might be a matter of interest to somebody at some point--that he ought to have it on the Order Paper. The matter has been canvassed rather thoroughly and very publicly already in this place and in a very public forum, but the honourable member raises these types of issues simply because he has nothing else to do.
Madam Speaker, if you look at the budget, which is the statement of what the government is all about, there cannot be anything more fundamental to explain what this government is all about than the budget that we produce on an annual basis. The honourable member does not want to talk about that. There are reasons for that. One of them is that there is overwhelming support amongst the people of Manitoba for the types of measures that are being brought forward by this government. The honourable member for--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. McCrae: For example, Madam Speaker, I think this is the 10th budget brought forward by this particular administration. This budget, like all the others, does not raise major taxes. In fact we have the most--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood, on a point of order.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I believe that Beauchesne makes it plain that debate should at least touch occasionally on the point at hand, but so far the member opposite has been talking about the budget. In case he missed it, it was passed to committee about eight days ago.
Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and what the honourable member has just raised by way of a point of order is an issue about spending priorities and saying that I should not be talking about them because of its matter of relevance. In his own speech, which no one complained about in terms of relevancy, including yourself, he made reference to spending priorities. That is exactly what I am doing, remaining on the point raised by the honourable member as he discussed the resolution before us.
I want to talk about spending priorities, because the honourable member raised them in his contribution today, and that is my contribution to the point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Crescentwood, in my opinion it is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. McCrae: There are other rules too, which I am not raising by way of any point of order here, but you are not really supposed to be debating more than once in a Legislature, or in a session of Legislature, matters already debated at length and decided upon. If any issue falls into that category, the one addressed in the resolution today is one of those because it certainly is very clear what happened. The honourable member has a tendency to beat on a horse that has already passed away. There is an old expression: If your horse is dead, get off it. The honourable member might well remember that very wise expression.
This is the honourable member, by the way, who proclaims publicly, Madam Speaker, that the people in this province have not had it up to here with taxes. They would like to see more taxes according to the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), and he is quite unabashed about it. If he were on this side of the House, that is exactly what the people would get, is more taxes. He supported the Pawley-Doer administration which raised taxes like no other administration in the history of this province, and he has the nerve and the gall to stand in his place here today and talk about the spending priorities of this government.
We on this side recognize very well, Madam Speaker, that taxpayers' dollars ought to be spent appropriately. For example, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) in his travels on behalf of the Province of Manitoba, with or without Mrs. Downey, achieved the indications of interest by, for example, Taiwanese business leaders who have been persuaded to meet here in the city of Winnipeg in June as a result of travels by the Deputy Premier and--
An Honourable Member: Why is she not a minister then?
Mr. McCrae: Well, now the honourable member wants to have another go at his speech. I guess he feels he did not do well enough in his first 15 or 20 minutes. Well, Madam Speaker, I suggest he did fine. He did a good job, but he was way off the point where the people of Manitoba are.
The people of Manitoba are very interested in job creation, for example, and how do you create jobs? By taking that monkey called the payroll tax off the backs of the business people of this province, because those are direct taxes against jobs in this province. They are direct disincentives compliments of the Pawley-Doer New Democrats. Today they will not support the budget because we have cut the payroll tax, because we are against taxing jobs, and they will not support that. They are for taxing away the jobs of our people in this province. To hide behind a resolution like the one they have before us today is simply to provide a smoke screen for the position of New Democrats which is tax, tax, tax, and let the people be damned. Madam Speaker, that shows less respect, that shows less integrity, that shows less leadership than anything complained about by the honourable member in Resolution 2 that is before us today.
Spending priorities: Madam Speaker, let us talk about how many trips were involved to lose $27 million on the sands of the desert in the Far East through MTX. How many travel dollars must have been spent in those days in order to bring about that kind of a mess compliments of the member for Crescentwood and his friends on the side of the New Democratic Party? How many more bridges to nowhere? How many spouses went on those MTX trips abroad to help make sure we lost $27 million? I do not want to know exactly because I have bad enough dreams sometimes, thinking about some of the policies of New Democratic members opposite. How many more bridges to nowhere would they have built had they been given a chance at a cost of millions and millions and millions of dollars? But, no, they would rather hide behind Resolution 2 today, so that we would not have to discuss things like that.
Where are the spending priorities of honourable members opposite when they choose through their policies to send to the bankers and the creditors of the people of this province $500 million, $600 million every year, the same honourable members who talk about their priorities being health and education and family services? They would rather send money to the bankers in Switzerland and Tokyo and New York and all over the place than to look after the little kids in our province who need the kinds of things that they rail about today.
What about all the flower counters that honourable members opposite put to work, so called, under the Jobs Fund and the money that they spent just telling the people of Manitoba about the wonders of the Jobs Fund and how it created jobs that lasted, how long? Maybe six weeks. Then at the end of that six weeks, there was no more government money left and no more jobs and what? Despair. Despair is what the NDP left behind. When I look across the Chamber opposite, Madam Speaker, what I see is unhappy, very sad people, and the reason is they think every problem they ever have is somebody else's fault.
That is what is wrong with the ideology of the New Democrats. There is no sense of responsibility for what goes on in this world amongst honourable members opposite; blame somebody else because everything is going to be okay with us. Well, it is not when we have to send $500 million to the creditors. I know, Madam Speaker. I was Minister of Health, and I know how much, how nice it would be and how easy it would be to administer a health system if we had $500 million extra in our hands that we did not send away to bankers compliments of the New Democratic Party.
They talked about integrity and setting priorities. Now, what kind of integrity is it that allows a government to apply political interference in the setting of the rates for us to insure our cars? Now, what kind of a thing is that? What kind of integrity is part of a government that uses political interference to set the rates for our insurance for our vehicles in our province? Well, we fixed that so that governments cannot do that anymore. I think that was the right thing to do, and I support it wholeheartedly. But no, we look at Resolution No. 2. This is the priority of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). It is the first one, I think, that he has got on the Order Paper, this No. 2. That is the kind of priority.
* (1730)
Honourable members could easily have offered to put this one to the bottom of the list and discuss things like jobs, things like the capital tax exemption, things like no increases to the sales tax, things like having three surplus budgets in a row, things like taking a $75-million crack at the debt that honourable members opposite delivered to the people of Manitoba. I wish I had a copy of the budget with me. They could have addressed the statistics in the back of the book that show how Brandon, Manitoba, for example, and Winnipeg figure very well when it comes to being competitive to attracting business investment to our province.
We could even spend some time talking about the photograph on the front of the budget, the picture of the city of Brandon. It is a picture that includes reference to the Canada Games coming up in Brandon later this year. These are the things that are important to people of Manitoba, and honourable members opposite tend to like to smoke-screen and hide behind other issues because they simply do not have good issues to bring to the people of Manitoba because the people of Manitoba are well governed, Madam Speaker, in this particular decade and will be for decades to come with the present administration.
The honourable member did not like talking, in his comments, about the growth that this minister, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) of Manitoba, in concert with other ministers, has made to happen in this province. It is exceedingly good news. Well, the honourable member for Crescentwood is a stranger to good news. It is an aversion to him. It gives him a rash. He gets lumps all over his body every time he thinks about the kind of good news that emanates from the policies of our government.
He did not talk about expenditures in Health, in Education and Training, and in Family Services. Why? Because what is going on today in Manitoba is far superior to anything the honourable member ever helped bring about during the NDP years. Those were sorry, sorry years, best put behind us, best forgotten, but the trouble with forgetting history is that we might by accident somehow repeat it.
I guess it is my job to remind Manitobans of the sorry, sorry history of this province under the administration of the New Democratic Party and, Madam Speaker, no one is going to go on record as saying that inappropriate expenditure of tax dollars is the way to go, of course not. The honourable member simply is out of touch with the people of this province. He hides behind resolutions like this because he cannot talk about issues like taxes, about issues like growth and jobs and all of those issues that are so important to Manitobans. He simply cannot do it because he has nothing to offer to the people of Manitoba.
Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I too would like to tell my colleagues today that I am very pleased to rise in opposition of this motion that has been brought by the member opposite, the erstwhile honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).
I heard the honourable member across feign grief and sadness to have to bring this motion to this Chamber today, but Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect to the honourable individual across, I would suggest that there was malice, that if I were to impugn any intent--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Sale: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister is impugning motives, and I think he should withdraw the comments unconditionally.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) to pick and choose his words carefully. All members in this Chamber are to be referred to as honourable members.
Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, if in fact the erstwhile honourable member across has been offended by my alleging that he might have brought some nonsalubrious intentions to this House, then I would be most quick to withdraw such comments. But I would like to echo the comments of my honourable colleague who spoke before me here when he mentioned that we were dealing with rant and with railing, with railing. These are railers, and Scripture enjoins that one must not rail. I am sure that a man of the cloth, of whom the erstwhile honourable member opposite indicates that he is, that he would descend to this form of verbal abuse.
Madam Speaker, I think that what we should do is try to analyze what the motion or the resolution is that the member opposite has brought and see how spurious this attempt at any sort of intellectual acuity is that he is presenting for the consideration of our members here today.
Madam Speaker, the title to this resolution is Spousal Travel Policy. Well, if the member opposite was going to be up to date, and I am surprised that the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has not been on her feet before this, objecting to this sort of comment in the House today, as the honourable member for Osborne indicates that she is the critic for women's affairs or feminine issues--
An Honourable Member: Status of Women.
Mr. Radcliffe: And Status of Women. That is correct. Now today I would suggest, Madam Speaker, from my observations, and I am sure that the honourable member across has been perceptive enough, but maybe again I am taking liberties with his visual acuity or his perceptions, that he could not conclude that there are many, there are a plethora of domestic arrangements that we find in our community and society today, and that he is trying to restrict his resolution to spousal relationships. So is this indicating that he is restricting his views to one type of relationship only, and that it is something that is only relating interspousal? I do not know if we are being invited to ignore certain parts of our community and not make laws of broad-reaching effects.
Madam Speaker, I would bring this with some temerity to the member's attention that I think once again honourable members across have missed the boat. They have missed the boat. They are wrong again.
An Honourable Member: They have not only missed the boat; they have missed the ocean.
Mr. Radcliffe: There you go. Madam Speaker, this resolution which so fecklessly has been brought before this Chamber today indicates that if the Premier agrees with something, or if it goes on some sort of list, it must therefore, ergo propter hoc, be correct. Ergo propter hoc.
Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, and I do not know whether my honourable colleague across can grasp this, but in fact maybe it might be more appropriate to discern whether the individual travelling with the minister at government expense was going to be providing good service to the people of Manitoba? Might not that be something more relevant?
My honourable colleague before us, before me, commented on relevance. What is the honourable colleague across the way really trying to address? Unfortunately, I would suggest that the honourable colleagues across really have trouble discerning and appreciating people who are successful.
Our honourable minister involved here went to South America as an ambassador to our fair province, introduced our industry, our population, our geographic advantages to the peoples of South America and made such a sufficiently attractive impression that we now have reciprocating relationships that will become evident this next summer. But do we hear anything about that? Do we hear anything about success? Does the honourable member across get up and say, minister, well done. We the people of Manitoba, we the honourable opposition--
* (1740)
An Honourable Member: It is not only minister, well done; Linda, well done.
Mr. Radcliffe: Indeed, that they are to be congratulated for travelling endless miles, working endless hours for the benefit of the people of Manitoba. I do not hear one scintilla of acclamation coming from the benches opposite. No, Madam Speaker, to the contrary. They want to pick, they want to denigrate--[interjection] Denigrate, I am sorry. I do hear somebody opposite correcting me on my pronunciation, and perhaps that is all that they can comment on.
I would suggest that they would be much better served and the people of Manitoba would be much better served if they started addressing what are the concepts on which a spouse should be travelling, not whether the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism approves it, or the honourable Minister of Housing approves something, but is the concept well founded. Are the people going to be well served? Is our money going to be frugally spent? Are we going to get value for these dollars? In fact, not a syllable of this resolution addresses that fact. That is indeed--
An Honourable Member: Not a scintilla.
Mr. Radcliffe: A scintilla, that is right.
The honourable member opposite is again talking about greater accountability on the matter of spousal travel. Just because you put something on a list does not make it accountable. You have to have the initial perception; you have to have the innate ability that this is going to serve our citizenry, our industry well. In fact, the speaker before me has commented that we really ought to be addressing the real issues and not being salacious, not levelling calumny at individuals who are trying to serve our province well, who spend endless hours without recompense, without acknowledgment, and then in this forum this is the recognition that erstwhile honourable members across try to devote to this sort of service to our province?
An Honourable Member: Do not forget spuriosity.
Mr. Radcliffe: Spuriosity. No, I think I shall refrain from making such a comment.
Now I heard some maunderings from some of the individuals opposite while the honourable House leader was commenting earlier. One of them was what do we do about young children in this province. Madam Speaker, I do not hear a single member across the way commenting either to the media or to their own publicity people, or even in this Chamber, that when we have people on public assistance in Manitoba, as regrettable as that may be--and some people do have to look to the public for support, and we recognize that, and the Filmon government is there to support them. I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, and I want to share this with my colleagues opposite because I believe it bears repetition because they obviously have great difficulty grasping this particular fact. The fact is that in the category, the age group of zero to 6, infants are best supported in Manitoba in comparison to any other jurisdiction in this country.
Now do I hear cheering opposite? Not a bit. There is stony silence. There is derisive scowling across the way, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): On a point of order, I would like to ask the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), as long as he is on the topic of support for people on social assistance, if he would explain the comment in his latest letter to his constituents and why he did not talk about the support of infants zero to six and instead talked about support to people from 12 to 17.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) does not have a point of order.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), who has two and a half minutes remaining.
Mr. Radcliffe: Well, Madam Speaker, I would like to now wrap up just by submitting a few of these humble comments that I am proud to stand up--
An Honourable Member: Humble, and then he said, "I am proud."
Mr. Radcliffe: You liked that.
An Honourable Member: You could be proud and humble.
Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, that is right. I am inalterably opposed to this motion going forward, and Madam Speaker, if I viewed the world through the lenses which our honourable colleagues opposite obviously view them, and all the world events, as evidenced by their attitudes, by their words in this Chamber, by the documentation that they present here, I could not raise my head. I would be so depressed because of the ceaseless, senseless criticism, day after day after day, having no thought at all to any sort or sense of factual reporting to this House.
So, Madam Speaker, I would say with the greatest of respect to my honourable colleague who does happen to be my representative in this Chamber, and so I have the opportunity to sit and observe his performance day after day after day.
An Honourable Member: Does he send you mailers?
Mr. Radcliffe: He does send me mailers, yes.
An Honourable Member: I get mailers too.
Mr. Radcliffe: He does not draw the line at that. He is indiscriminate in his communication.
An Honourable Member: I strictly am, in your case.
Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I find not a scintilla of merit in this resolution and I can only urge my honourable colleagues in this Chamber to out of hand dispense with this and do not show it the modicum of respect that this shows or displays to the individuals involved, to the concepts that are at stake, nor to the people in this Chamber, nor basically to the people of Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of being able to put a few of these comments on the record.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to add just a few words to the resolution. Generally speaking, in reading it, I would rather not necessarily comment on the WHEREASes, but the principle of publicly funded--when public finances go into the travelling for one's spouses, I, for one, do not see too much of a problem in terms of having some record in essence that clearly demonstrates that this is in fact occurring, whether it is a letter from the Premier--[interjection] Well, I think that might be going a little bit over potentially. But there is no doubt that there is a need for something with respect to it.
I know personally, for one, any and every opportunity I have in which I can go to an event with my spouse, a person in which, Madam Speaker, I take great privilege in being with and care dearly for her, I think it is wonderful if in fact we take our spouses out to the many different events that are out there. Where on occasion, I would imagine in particular with government, there might be a need for some public assistance in terms of finances, as long as it is clearly made known that this is in fact occurring, I would not, for one, because I realize the importance of having your spouse with you, or common law or whatever the proper terminology might be for a particular incident, partner, that that in fact be allowed.
So the principle of the resolution's THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED is something in which I would speak in support of but not necessarily that it has to be a letter from, for example, the Premier. But there is a need for something. Thank you.
* (1750)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am rising today to speak against the resolution which has been put forward by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), and I speak against it for a number of reasons.
I am also the Minister responsible for the Status of Women in this province, and I do have some concerns about some of the comments raised by the member opposite and what they mean to particularly women in Manitoba. However, I am aware of the fact that the resolution speaks about spouses. I am not sure if he intended that to mean also partners. There has been some real difficulty in this Chamber understanding the intention behind the member's resolution but, as a member in this Chamber, I would rise to speak on behalf of families, because I think that is really the important issue here in terms of whether any one of us in this Chamber, a male member, a female member travels with a spouse or partner, and that is the intention of families to remain together.
I listened with interest as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) spoke for this resolution, and it is my understanding that the Prime Minister, the head of the federal Liberal Party, in fact does support spouses travelling so that when ministers are doing business on behalf of the country, in this case on behalf of the province, that families in fact can be together.
The member across the way, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), has not experienced very much time being elected, no time in government and, therefore, I can only assume that the draw on his time in terms of his own family is perhaps not very great. Perhaps there does not seem to be an issue of consideration for him, that families in fact should remain together. But, Madam Speaker, I certainly stand today in support of families, the time that they would spend together.
Then I would say to the member that, as family members travel together, there are often official duties in which families being represented speak very well for our province. They speak very well for the values of this government, and very well for the values of the individuals on this side of the House. It seems to be giving rise to a lot of laughing and comments from the other side. I speak most sincerely, Madam Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House.
There are official duties which often family members will participate together. There is assistance, information and support in a very important way for members. There are often spousal programs. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) spoke about this in a way that tended to denigrate a spousal program that in fact really could not have been of much importance or perhaps would only have been of value to a spouse who was a woman. I would tend to disagree with him. I would say that each one of our spouses in this Chamber brings something to a program. Whether that spouse is a children's dentist such as my husband or a homemaker and a mother, I think that there is something that they all can add to spousal programs, to the contacts, and to the way that we represent Manitoba, in fact, around the world. So I think that it is often very important.
Madam Speaker, I hear members across the way refer to the business that we do abroad as jaunts. I believe the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) now just used that word, characterized the work that government does abroad as a jaunt. Well, it is clear that she has never had the opportunity or ever been required, probably never will be required to represent her province in another part of this country or perhaps in other places around the world.
These trips are not holidays. I think that is well known by members, certainly, on this side. They are in fact their work. They require a great deal of planning. They require a great deal of information, and they require work on behalf of the people of Manitoba. So trips abroad are not holidays and members on the other side, who admittedly are recently elected and have no experience on the government side, may think of them as jaunts, but they would be very wrong, and those people who work very hard to put the trips together and also the benefits that come back to Manitoba as a result of these working trips show in fact that they are clearly not jaunts.
Also I can tell you that ministers who have to make this decision do in fact have responsibility, which is discussed in this House, for in all cases millions of dollars, in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, in which their decisions have to be made on a regular basis. To determine then if a trip on behalf of our government would be appropriate to have a spouse attend along with them, I believe that they are in fact able to make that decision.
Colleagues before me have spoken about the term "appropriateness" being the measure, not whether or not there is a note from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or a note from members opposite which would provide approval, but rather the note is not the significant thing. What is significant is the appropriateness of the work that is to be done and whether or not that work may legitimately involve a spouse and also legitimately involve families, that being of value of our province being represented on the work of government and representing that to places around the world. As the member knows, there are many countries that we do business with--I believe he knows this--in which families are a very important part of the way they assess whether or not business should be done. Whether this is the kind of place that they wish to do business and to have a family representation is often seen in a very positive way, and may also influence whether or not--be one of the influencing features of whether or not that business would be done. I believe the member's experience should have shown him that, perhaps not everyone on his side, but I think that his experience should in fact show him that.
So, Madam Speaker, I know that there are a couple of other people who would like to speak, so with that I will say that I do not support this resolution, and one of my main reasons is I believe the member has spoken against families with such a resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I too rise in speaking in opposition to this resolution. I would like to just expand on the comments that the Minister for Culture and Heritage (Mrs. Vodrey) was talking on, the whole area of family, of being able to be together with spouse or with your partner in travelling. I believe it is important that we, on a continuing basis, do that.
I would like to speak from my own experience, Madam Speaker, of having been involved in business, of having had the opportunity to take my spouse with me, and I believe, as we meet with other jurisdictions, with other people, that they respect that, that they want to see that, and I am amazed and appalled at the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) that he would come up with a resolution of this nature which would oppose the whole area of family, would oppose the opportunities for families to go together, to travel and in fact be able to represent whether it is a business or whether it is the province in this case in this way. I believe it is important that as we meet with other leaders that we represent our province, that we represent Manitoba in a way that is appropriate.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the policy which the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has been referring to, in fact, remains as has been since the 1970s, in which the ministers, the cabinet ministers and their spouses--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., when this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) will have 13 minutes remaining. I am leaving the Chair with the understanding that the House will reconvene at 8 p.m. this evening.