Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that under Rule 31, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need for a public judicial inquiry into new allegations that Darryl Sutherland, an independent Native Voice candidate in the Interlake in the 1995 provincial election, was given illegal campaign contributions by Allan Aitken, the chair of the Progressive Conservative campaign in the Interlake, and Roland Cubby Barrett, a prominent fundraiser for the Progressive Conservative Party, and that the illegal contributions were directed by Taras Sokolyk, the Premier's chief of staff.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Thompson, I believe I should 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 parties in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As stated in Beauchesne Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to suggest to members of this Legislature that this, indeed, is extremely urgent, that so long as we have this issue with the clear questions of corruption at the highest levels of the Conservative Party and this government, as long as we see the evidence of clear dirty tricks in the last campaign, and as long as we see a Premier trying to stonewall, we need to debate this issue in the House.
I want to stress the connections here, starting with Taras Sokolyk, and I want to put in context this affects not only the credibility or lack thereof of the Conservative Party, but goes right to the heart of this government. We know that Mr. Sokolyk was the campaign manager in the last election. I have from Tory Talk June '95: the person behind the machine; the guy who worked to keep it all together; the campaign manager who refused to fail; his friends call him fearless.
Madam Speaker, the one Conservative we have to keep in mind--let us keep in mind Allan Aitken, former aide to M.P., Tory M.P., Felix Holtmann, and campaign manager for the PC candidate in the Interlake in 1990 and 1995. What was Allan Aitken's role? Allan Aitken's role was contacting Darryl Sutherland, the aboriginal candidate, the Native Voice candidate, offering to finance his campaign. As the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) pointed out before, he had to run against not one but two Tory-funded candidates in the last election. I want to add to that the PC candidate in St. Boniface.
I find this interesting, Madam Speaker, because the defence of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) earlier is essentially to call two Tories liars but say the other one is not lying, comments he will not make out of this House because he will be sued for it. We have a tough time in determining, in this particular case I might add, which Tories are lying on this particular case. The way to find out is by having an independent investigation, a judicial review of this matter.
Let us stress, Madam Speaker, why this is so important. Darryl Sutherland has made it clear that his campaign was funded by the Conservative Party. We have the witnesses who are both well-connected Conservatives involved in the campaign, but we also have reference to a meeting that took place between Allan Aitken and Taras Sokolyk. That conversation apparently went with Sokolyk saying--with the question of the funding of the aboriginal candidates--that it was a job well done.
I recall this--friends call him fearless, the person behind the machine, the guy who worked to keep it all together, the campaign manager who would not refuse to fail. What it does not reference in this, Madam Speaker, this campaign manager, the chief of the staff of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would do anything to try and subvert the democratic process, including funding bogus candidates in three critical seats in the last election. That is unacceptable, and it is particularly unacceptable to see once again the disgusting attitude of this government when it comes to aboriginal people in this province, and aboriginal people throughout this province are disgusted by this government's actions.
There is only one way to clear the air, Madam Speaker. We cannot do it through any other opportunity, an isolated grievance or any other matter. The way to clear the air is to have the debate today so that we can try and persuade the Filmon government to listen, the Premier to stop stonewalling, to do the right thing, deal with new evidence that has come forth in the last few months that shows clearly that Darryl Sutherland's campaign was financed by the Conservative Party right up to the top level with Taras Sokolyk.
I say the longer this government tries to stonewall, the more it will be the question on people's minds: why is the Premier not anxious to have this matter dealt with, with people under oath putting their statements on this issue before? Perhaps it is because the Premier himself does not want to be in a position of being called to testify, because I question on the public record today, if it involved Taras Sokolyk, the Premier's right-hand man, what did the Premier know about this and is that perhaps the reason why he chose to stonewall today? This is corruption. This indeed is the most clear evidence of dirty tricks we have seen, perhaps with the exception of 1988 in this province, and I say--[interjection] Well, members mention Jim Walding, and we will deal with that because that, too, will come to the fore. But I say today we are dealing with a government and a political party that has shown that it cares nothing about the use of dirty tricks. This taints the democratic process. We want the investigation. We want the judicial inquiry. We want a debate today so we can persuade the government to listen to the people of Manitoba who will be wanting explanations about this. That is why we want the debate today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (1440)
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the presentation made by the honourable member for Thompson, in support--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the words of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), which he uttered this afternoon in support of his application under Rule 31 dealing with matters of urgent public importance, that the business of the House be set aside so that we could spend the day discussing the matters he is speaking of.
Now, Madam Speaker, this particular procedure in our rules is there so that we can deal with matters of urgent public importance, and I am assuming the honourable member for Thompson gave appropriate notice to Your Honour with respect to his intentions to raise this matter today. So I do not really think I need to deal with that, but he is raising allegations in this House which he thinks justifies setting aside the business of the House to deal with this matter of urgent public importance.
As I said, I listened carefully to what the honourable member said, and I wrote it down as he said it. He said that we have new evidence that has come forth in the last few months. Now this House has been sitting for the last few months, and if, as all the comments of honourable members opposite would indicate or suggest today, this is such an important matter and of urgent and pressing importance, then why has it taken them months to bring it to the attention of the House?
Madam Speaker, the position being taken here today is laughable. What it demonstrates to me is that we have an extremely frustrated opposition party groping to get onto the other side of the House and return to power, which I suggest is the highest case of dreaming in technicolour. The honourable members opposite have failed after all these months in the House to raise any issues that should somehow do damage to this government, so they sit on allegations for several months. They sit on allegations for several months, and then on this day in June of this year bring forward allegations that, by their own admission, have been in existence now for the last few months.
Madam Speaker, this is about the worst case put to try to justify setting aside the ordinary business of the House for a debate on a matter of urgent public importance. We have allegations raised by honourable members which amount to nothing more at this stage, especially after these matters have been around for the last few months, nothing more than innuendo as a last desperate attempt to try to raise issues that will somehow stick on the government as it were.
Honourable members collectively have failed to raise issues in this House in the last few months, and so they have found something that happened in the last few months that they decided to bring forward today. Madam Speaker, it fails on all counts in terms of urgency of debate, so other business, important business, and I am sure honourable members on all sides would recognize that the other business that we have in front of us is extremely important too, but we have had Estimates review, we have had all the latitude that is allowed in the debate of bills before the House. We have concurrence. We have had all kinds of opportunities for honourable members, and they remain even yet so that the honourable member's argument must fail, unfortunately for New Democrats, whose frustration, I am sorry to report, is showing today.
Madam Speaker: I wish to advise the House that the notice required under Rule 31.(1) was provided. I thank honourable members for advice on whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) should be debated today. Under our rules and practices, the subject matter requiring urgent consideration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. There must be no other reasonable opportunities to raise the matter. With respect to whether there are other opportunities to debate this matter, I would note that the honourable member for Thompson has not used his grievance. This is a serious matter; however, I am not convinced that the matter is of such urgency to require that the regular business of the House be put aside in order to debate the matter today.
Therefore I am ruling the matter does not meet the criteria set by our rules and practices.
Mr. Ashton: The rules prohibit the challenge of a ruling, but I would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that grievances appear on the Order Paper before a matter of urgent public importance. I have no opportunity to use a grievance today and other members would like to speak on this who have not used their grievances. I respect the fact that under our rules we cannot challenge your ruling, but the aspect about the grievance I would suggest is somewhat out of order because grievances appear on the Order Paper before I am able to raise a matter of urgent public importance. I have no opportunity to rise on a grievance until tomorrow. I have no opportunity today, so while we certainly cannot challenge your ruling, I would ask that you take the matter under advisement.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order.