Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), that under Rule 31, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the record numbers of children in care, the huge workloads for social workers and the overall crisis in child welfare in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Before recognizing the honourable member for Burrows, I would remind all members that under our subrule 31(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating this matter immediately.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, I believe that my motion is in order because we have been finished the Estimates for Family Services for some time now; I have already used my grievance; we have new information that was just obtained very recently, and although I could write a resolution on this topic, it would not get debated during this session.
I believe that we need an emergency debate because there is a crisis. There is a crisis when children are in hotels and four-bed units. We know from Winnipeg Child and Family Services that this continues to be a serious problem, and these are the most expensive placements at $124 per day. In the strategic planning document, Winnipeg Child and Family Services says that in 1997-98 there was a huge jump in the use of short-term placements. I believe there is a crisis when the workload for social workers is supposed to be 15 families per worker, according to the American child welfare organization, but the average for Winnipeg Child and Family Services social workers is 38 families per worker. I believe there is a crisis when a worker testifies at the inquest into the death of a baby that he knew the workload was too high because a baby died. I believe there is a crisis when the worker in this case testified that he had 48 cases. Well, who is saying that it is a crisis?
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Could I please request those members having private meetings to do so outside the Chamber? I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member's comments relative to the urgency of the debate.
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Who is saying that there is a crisis? Is it just the official opposition in the Manitoba Legislature? No. Is it just the Children's Advocate who in one of his annual reports said that there is a crisis in child welfare in Manitoba? No. Who else believes there is a crisis? Well, I believe the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) believes there is a crisis because yesterday in Question Period she said, and I quote, "the way that we have been doing business for years and years and years in the area of the child and family services system is not working, despite the fact that we are pouring more money into the system year after year."
So, not only do I believe that there is a crisis in the child welfare system, not only does the Children's Advocate believe there is a crisis in the child welfare system and people testifying at an inquest into the death of a baby, but this Minister of Family Services also believes there is a crisis in the child welfare system because she says that it is not working, and what is she doing about it?
Well, this is an opportunity today for the Speaker to recognize the need for an emergency debate, so that all members in this Chamber and all three parties represented here can articulate their ideas for making improvements to the child welfare system so that children are afforded protection, so that children do not die in the care of child welfare and so that this crisis can be solved, that we can find some practical solutions to these problems. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think you should allow for an emergency debate to go ahead.
Now the spending by Winnipeg Child and Family Services is estimated in '97-98 to be $67 million, and the minister responsible for this spending, who approves their total budget, says that the system is not working. Well, what is the government doing about it? Well, this minister, the minister of pilot projects announced tiny little dribbles of money to try and solve this problem, but her pilot projects are not going to solve the crisis in child welfare.
So I would urge you to allow this emergency debate to go ahead so that we can debate it in full this afternoon in the Manitoba Legislature and give the government some good advice, because that is what they desperately need. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (1440)
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, as was pointed out during Question Period, the matter which is the subject of the honourable member's motion this afternoon is an extremely important matter. Honourable members opposite use the word "crisis" to describe virtually every matter they bring before the House. I think they sometimes forget that the real crisis is in the family, where Family Services are required to deal with children in those families. I think honourable members opposite forget that is where the crisis really is. The crisis is not in this Chamber but in those family circumstances.
With that in mind, Madam Speaker, our Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) is extremely dedicated to her work. She is extremely mindful of the responsibilities of herself and her department, and the problem raised by the honourable member is something already acknowledged by the honourable Minister of Family Services. In 1998, we see the incidence of children being lodged in hotel rooms reduced from that which was existing in 1997. The minister would be the first to say that that is still not satisfactory and that there are still issues to be resolved. That is why we have a Department of Family Services. That is why we have a Winnipeg child agency. It is to deal with the crises that occur, unfortunately, in families from time to time, and they need to be there and running.
The challenge has been, the challenge discussed today between the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and the Minister of Family Services with regard to opportunities for debate--we have had the opportunity of the review of the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. We also have the opportunity of concurrence which is coming up. But that aside, honourable members opposite need to be reminded from time to time that every single matter they bring in here they refer to as a crisis, and after a while honourable members opposite themselves will confuse members of the public about what a real crisis is. I remind them again, the real crisis is in the family when these circumstances arise. The honourable Minister of Family Services is working hard with the department and Winnipeg Child and Family Services to address the matters.
The honourable member for Burrows seems to suggest that there is some kind of quick-fix solution to this kind of problem, and, by having a debate this afternoon, the honourable member for Burrows, all by himself and a few of his colleagues, can give the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) the advice she needs to make this crisis pass.
Madam Speaker, the honourable members are clearly wrong. They display a total lack of understanding about what Family Services is all about. I am reminded very much of their own pitiable record when they were in government, and there has been significant improvement in the support from the government of Manitoba to these matters in the days and years since. But by the definition of what amounts to a requirement for an emergency debate, I regret to suggest that the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has not made his case. He has made his case, as the minister has done, that the matters are extremely important and, indeed, of crisis proportions for individual families.
The honourable member also needs to understand and be reminded that the Minister of Family Services, in any event, would not be able to discuss the matters related to individual files. That would be an inappropriate thing for the minister to do, and I suggest other members, too, but other members do not seem to care about that, but our minister has to care about that and be responsible, unlike what we see sometimes from honourable members opposite.
So, with due respect, the honourable member has raised his point, Madam Speaker, but I believe he fails on the points of where he needs to succeed.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The government House leader says that I do not care about matters of individual cases and confidentiality, and nothing can be further from the truth. We do not want to talk about individual cases or anything that is confidential. We want to talk about what the minister said, that the system is not working. That is the issue today.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, I accept what the honourable member says, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: However, the honourable member for Burrows did not have a point of order. It was clearly a dispute over the facts.
Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader has approximately 30 seconds to complete his remarks.
Mr. McCrae: Just to wrap up, I do respect the honourable member for Burrows and his wish not to break the rules. I wish I could say the same thing about all of his colleagues, but unfortunately I cannot always do that.
Madam Speaker, this is indeed a serious matter. The Minister of Family Services is treating it that way. But the matter, as raised by the honourable member, does not fall within the ambit of the rules, and therefore his motion should not be allowed.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I thank all honourable members for their advice on whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Burrows should be debated today.
The notice required under Rule 31.(1) was indeed provided. According to Rule 31 and Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390, there are two tests for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed; one, is the subject matter so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought out early enough, and two, has it been shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.
With respect to whether there are other opportunities to debate this matter, I note that the Estimates of the Department of Family Services are concluded. The honourable member for Burrows could, however, use the vehicle of an Opposition Day motion. Further, I am not convinced that the public will suffer if the matter is not debated this day. Therefore, I am ruling the matter does not meet the criteria set by our rules and practices.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker.
We cannot challenge, according to the rules, your decision. But I would just like to point out that Opposition Day motions require notice. We do not have control over when they are called. That is done between the government House leader and the opposition House leader, and we certainly cannot table an Opposition Day motion and have it dealt with on the same day.
The reason we moved the emergency debate was we felt it should be dealt with today, and I do have some concerns if that particular opportunity is seen as taking away the ability of members to raise emergency debates. If we filed an Opposition Day motion today, we might not see it until next week. So I am not challenging your ruling; we cannot do that, but I do have some concerns about that aspect of the ruling, Madam Speaker.
* (1450)
Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: On the same point or order, Madam Speaker. You cannot call a matter a crisis in the same breath that you call it chronic, and that is what the honourable members seem to want--to have it both ways. I do not take issue with what the honourable member for Thompson says. The rules for an Opposition Day are laid out in the rules.
On the other hand, you are right, Madam Speaker, and I do not feel very comfortable reflecting on what you have already said, except that you are right that Opposition Days are available, grievances are still available to honourable members in the New Democratic Party, unless they have all used them.
The honourable members opposite understand the rules that grievances are to be used once. I cannot recall what the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) grieved about before, but you know, you need to--honourable members understand the rules of this House, and they make sure that they are provided with ample opportunity to discuss the matters that they want to discuss. I did also, in my comments, refer to the fact that concurrence is still available, and that is not too far off.
If other opportunities need to be made available, honourable members maybe can talk with me. But I do not want to discuss in the House my private discussions with the honourable member for Thompson because we, I think, work very co-operatively in getting a lot of the business of the work of the House done and, on matters before us, bringing them to us.
But I do not think the point of order is an appropriate way to deal with a ruling of the House of the Speaker. In the past, those rulings could be challenged and often were, but the rules now say the ruling of the Chair shall not be subject to appeal. I suggest a point of order on the same point falls short of an outright appeal but perhaps ought not to be entertained in view of all of the other opportunities honourable members have.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I appreciate his advice; however, he did not have a point of order