Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

Today, I rise on a matter of privilege further to a decision made by the Chair in this House on Thursday, and events that led up to that decision by yourself. I am raising this at the earliest opportunity which is the first time we have met since the decision and the matter of privilege that was raised on Thursday.

The matter of privilege that is being raised is based on the most fundamental precept and underpinning of parliamentary democracy. It is no less, in paragraph 1 of Beauchesne, where it states, the principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament. These are "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority . . . . "

Those words have been echoed in this Chamber many times, and it is strange that it is in this Chamber, of all the chambers throughout parliamentary democracies of the world, where the Manitoba public and the legislators here have been faced with some of the most dramatic events, whether it be the bell ringing crisis, the French language crisis as it was called or the Meech Lake crisis, for example.

A precedent has been established in this House that is applicable throughout the modern world in parliamentary democracies. I refer specifically to rulings by Speaker Walding and Speaker Rocan, Speakers who recognized what Eugene Forsey reminds us of, that Parliament is not a mere creature of the cabinet, deliberating only when for so long and under such conditions as the cabinet thinks fit, pronouncing or not pronouncing judgment as the cabinet may choose.

In fact, it was George Bain, a respected Canadian political observer, who made a warning about the growing power of the executive, the cabinet, when he said that this power is accountable for the use of more and more drastic measures--the 1983 shutdown of the Canadian House of Commons while the bells rang, for notable example--to focus attention. It has become the case that only if a generally torpid public opinion can somehow be galvanized is there a hope that the gross disproportion of executive power can be redressed.

Speaker Walding specifically, back in 1984, ruled, contrary to the wishes of individuals in his political party, contrary to the wishes of individuals who were responsible for his appointment to the Speakership, disregarding the demands from the front bench, from the House leader of the day, and concluded--when he was asked to turn off the bells that were ringing and ringing and ringing, he said there is no right of government that would see its proposed legislation enacted. There are numerous examples of government bills introduced to the House and not proceeding into legislation. He then replied to a written request by the Premier of the day asking that he limit the bell ringing. He said, the rules and procedures of the Legislature are well known and well established. They constitute a clear set of procedures which the House expects to be enforced by its Speaker with fairness and impartiality.

Speaker Walding went on. He said: Since the House is close to effecting a change in its rules, I am surprised that you, Mr. Premier, would request that I contravene the existing rules and procedures at this time. Any unilateral action on my part could only be a betrayal of the impartiality of the Chair and would seriously undermine the integrity of the Speakership.

* (1335)

I was thinking yesterday how many millions and millions and millions of people we have on this earth, how people are just passing through and very few individuals who come into being have a role to play that will have meaning in future years, let alone generations. Once in a while, individuals indeed are given a rare opportunity to serve their community, to serve the institutions that have proven to serve us well. You, Madam Speaker, are one of those. I ask you to reflect on your decision of Thursday last, but I think it is a time that we also reflect as members of this House and particularly members of the government reflect on what took place.

It is our belief that what took place on Thursday was the Chair not merely filling a gap in rules. You made a ruling and in your ruling you are required to set forth authority. You failed to do so, any authority that was on point. You cited a ruling by Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons bearing on nothing that is before this House. The circumstances were entirely different, but you seem to be relying on his words, which include the following: The House is nevertheless facing an impasse which it has been unable to resolve for itself. When circumstances change and the rules of procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion, and so on. If those are the conditions precedent for the Speaker doing as you did, those conditions were not met in this Chamber. I asked Madam Speaker what impasse this House was facing. You did not address that. There are many options available to the government in the circumstances. First of all, I noticed that Speaker Walding when the bells were ringing summoned the House leaders to his office to attempt a resolution of the matter. Even such a self-evident attempted solution was never pursued.

But I now want to enumerate what options were available to the members of the government and to you and what must have been considered before you made that terrible ruling on Thursday. Very briefly, there was a memorandum of understanding entered into by the House leaders in this Chamber. The memorandum of understanding was dated in December of 1995 and I often hear people--and I think it was last Thursday--talking about an agreement that has been broken. Well, if the memorandum of understanding is what was being referred to, that memorandum of understanding is no longer applicable to the members of this House. This is no longer in force.

The memorandum of understanding is no longer in force because the government made sure of that, because in the memorandum in the preamble it states: "It is herein agreed between the Government of Manitoba and the Members of the Opposition, that the rules and procedures governing the operation of the Legislature of Manitoba will be amended as soon as possible to encompass the following changes." What the memorandum of understanding's role was, was simply to say, here are some ideas; let us go and put these into the rules. Once the rules were put into effect, the memorandum of understanding lived no longer. There is no memorandum of understanding.

There are now rules of the House that were agreed to by the rules committee in March, several months after this memorandum was concluded, and which were subsequently agreed to by members of this House. From the time of the memorandum of understanding to the adoption of the new rules, there were significant changes in how the ideas were to be expressed. One of the most obvious was that, while the memorandum of understanding said all bills so introduced will proceed to a vote on third reading and royal assent not later than the final day of the fall sitting, words to that effect are not found in the rules.

*(1340)

Now, Madam Speaker, I as one member of this Assembly am entitled to rely on these rules, as are my constituents. The rules were agreed to by the House leader personally, by the members opposite, by the Premier (Mr. Filmon). I am entitled to rely on the rules. What does the rule say? Rule 102 says very clearly that all government bills will normally--normally--receive a vote on third reading not later than the fall sittings of that session. It does not say that there shall be third reading. It said, will, which is not mandatory. It does not say all will receive a vote on third reading and royal assent. It just says, normally.

Well, it is interesting. I believe it was just two weeks ago that you gave effect to the word "normally" when you said that the House did not finish its deliberations after eight weeks, because the word "normally" is used in the section saying, the House will normally sit eight weeks. Why is it that shortly, a few days later, you did not give effect to the word "normally." We are not in a normal situation, and you know that and you said so in your ruling with regard to the eight-week session.

What did the government want? It wanted that section written in there that normally all third readings will be held the last day of the fall sittings. In exchange for their right to continue the session on a simple notice of motion, they specifically insisted on the rules being drafted to allow them to sit beyond the normal fall sittings. Why is that? Because they know that things are not often normal in this House. They know that they were bringing in controversial legislation, I suspect, and they wanted to preserve that right. So what have you done, Madam Speaker? You threw out Rule 102. You have supplanted and in fact abrogated a rule, and not just one, I suggest.

Now the government has not come to the opposition seeking an agreement. Not once did they come to this side saying, hey, we have some very controversial legislation before this House and we have time constraints that we are concerned about because we, after all, are minions of the marketplace and we have to get this bill ready for all our friendly stockbrokers. They did not do so. As I said, they did not seek an extension of the sittings.

Madam Speaker, the government did not move closure. It is not unprecedented that closure be moved in this Legislature. In 1929 it was moved and again, many, many years later but recently during the French language crisis, it was moved I believe not just once but twice.

They have the option of the previous question, a form of closure. They have the option of speed-up, something that was brought in every year in this House till about 10 years ago. In fact, the government can move a motion to change how the House conducts its business in any way it sees fit. It can restrict debate in any way it sees fit. It can have sittings anytime. It could start it at midnight if it wanted on an ordinary motion and the majority vote of this House. These rules are not the Constitution. They can be varied by simple motion.

But what did it do? It did something heinous. It put you, Madam Speaker, in a position where your oath has been violated and where you, in that chance in your lifetime, that rare opportunity to continue to pass on to future generations a system of government that protects the rights of minority, put you in a position of breaching your place in history, of abrogating your responsibilities to the members and to the people of Manitoba.

*(1345)

People often think that they are electing a government, but they are not. They are electing a Legislature. A Legislature is not accountable to the government. It is the other way around. The government continues only so long as it has the confidence and support of the Legislature, and the Legislature is given certain tools in order to check the power of the executive and the cabinet to make sure there is not tyranny and dictatorship. What the government did last week and what you ruled, Madam Speaker, has eroded those tools, taken those tools away from the public of Manitoba. It has detracted from our ability to make the government accountable to the people through the members of this Chamber.

What happened last week, Madam Speaker, is an ominous sign of a new power of the Speakership only in the province of Manitoba in Canada, because how can we now rest assured that the Speaker will respect the rights of the minority, because as I said, not only have you not had a gap, there were rules fully in place that covered all the situations, but you supplanted the rules and made up rules of your own and the government sadly requested that you do so.

In the future, how can we rely on the rules to which we are entitled to rely on? How can we ever again trust the office of Speakership unless this ruling is expunged?

It has often be said, but I think we must reiterate--and it was said on Thursday by the opposition House leader--the Speaker is the servant of the House, not its master. You are here to enforce the rules and procedures established by the members. No one has given the Speaker the authority to make rules up, especially when they contravene not just what happened in Erskine May in Britain, not just what is in Beauchesne, but what is in our own rule book. It is only the House that has the right to determine its procedures and ensure the functions.

You know, Jeanne Sauve, the former Speaker of the House of Commons was one of the first ones in modern day to have to face the serious difficulty of reconciling bell ringing, and I think it was well put. Philip Laundy, the former table officer in Ottawa, once argued: A discussion of the Speaker's impartiality normally lays stress on his duty or her duty to protect the rights of minorities. This is a duty of which no Speaker can ever lose sight, but impartiality also implies a regard for the rights of the majority as well as minorities, and in a modern Parliament no Speaker can ignore the claims of a hard-pressed government striving to achieve its legislative program.

Certainly, Madam Speaker, you took that fully into view. But then what did Madam Sauve respond? Did she do as you did? She acknowledged that she was obliged to protect the minority against oppression and, indeed, to protect the majority against obstruction. She admitted, however, she could not turn the bells off, because she could do nothing to reconcile those two obligations and still remain impartial.

Madam Speaker, as a result of the situation you were put in and the expectations you had of your office and neglect of what your oath required of you which you agreed to, this institution has been undermined. It has not just been undermined since last Thursday up until whenever. It has been undermined seriously, perhaps in perpetuity.

*(1350)

The government, I am sad to say, I believe perceives this Legislature as a mere inconvenience to its exercise of power, and because of the legislation that is before this House and which has led to this dire situation, it has shown, I think, to Manitobans just how powerful are the forces of Bay and Wall Streets because they have now got their sticky fingers on the very tenets of parliamentary democracy.

So, Madam Speaker, in light of this threat, in light of the difficulties that each member of this Chamber will have--and I warn the members opposite that they are in government only temporarily, and this ruling and the situation you were put in also threatens their ability some day. We believe that there should be a rethinking of what has gone terribly amiss and that members of this House have something much greater to uphold, have something much greater to attain than see a particular bill pass in an undemocratic and, I would suggest, illegal way.

I therefore move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a question of privilege is a very serious matter and one that ought not to often appear in a Legislative Assembly. While the member for St. Johns has brought forward a matter of privilege not substantially different from that of the member for Thompson last Thursday, nonetheless it is a very serious matter and one that should not be considered lightly.

Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns, I do not believe, has made any kind of a prima facie case at all with respect to a matter of privilege, but nonetheless I would like to comment on a few of the things that he raised here.

He indicated, first of all, Madam Speaker, with respect to Beauchesne Citation 1, to protect a minority and to restrain the improvidence of a majority. I refer him to the very next words in Beauchesne Citation 1, "to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner . . . . " That also is a principle of Canadian parliamentary law.

Madam Speaker, he referred also to Speaker Walding, particularly in the 1983 French language debates where he cited that Speaker Walding told the then-Premier of the day he would not contravene the rules, and that is exactly as he should have. However, in this case it is not contravening the rules; it is enforcing the rules. It is enforcing a rule that every member of this House voted on back on April 2, 1996. We agreed collectively and we all knew what the principles were behind that, notwithstanding the fact that the memorandum of understanding was supplanted by the rule. The fact of the matter is we all knew what the principles were behind it: introduce legislation in the spring; vote on it in the fall. That was the principle. The trade-off, as it were, to provide for early notice of legislation, because historically, prior to that, bills were introduced and in a matter of two or three weeks were at third reading stage.

*(1355)

We, Madam Speaker, in that agreement said, we will introduce all of our legislation in the spring. It was all introduced prior to June 6. There were several months available then to the public, members of the opposition and others to review that legislation so that when the House resumed its fall sitting, everyone would have a fair understanding, everyone would have had the opportunity to consult with whomever they wished in order to understand, in order to get opinion, in order to determine how they would address the debate on that particular piece of legislation or, for that matter, all pieces of legislation that were introduced there. But the rules are different. They are not the rules that Speaker Walding ruled on. Madam Speaker, the ruling that you ruled on was one that was adopted by this House on April 2.

Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) said we did not discuss this with the opposition, this controversial piece of legislation. I can think of at least six or seven occasions I raised with the opposition House leader the question that they were not debating Bill 67. For the first four weeks or so of the session, Bill 67 was not debated. We had one debate on September 16, the next on October 15. I raised the issue with him knowing that time was running out. The opposition House leader told me that they would have the bill into committee 10 days before the November 7 anticipated date of concluding and in his view that was plenty of time. So let them not raise the question with respect to the fact that there was not opportunity. There was. There was also encouragement on my part on a number of occasions to get on with the major pieces of legislation, to get them into committee. I have told you what the reply of the opposition House leader was.

Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns is quite right when he says that we have to rely on the rules, but reliance on the rules is not just for the opposition, it is also for the government. It is also for the members of the Liberal caucus. All of us in this House have a right to rely on the rules and when we rely on those rules, we also have a right to expect them to be enforced. When the mechanism for enforcement of those rules is absent, I submitted last Monday that it was in your purview to establish a way of dealing with it. It was not a question of leaving it until Thursday afternoon at three or four or five o'clock to determine that but also to determine it in a point so that all members of the House would have ample notice so that there would be sufficient time to do those things that the members of the opposition, the members of the Liberal caucus want to do in their consideration of this bill, whether it be amendments to be entered into or other things.

The fact of the matter is though, that when we deal with this kind of legislation, very often--we had a very large legislative agenda this year, some 77 bills. We had a number of discussions. Several of those bills passed in the spring sitting because of an agreement by all members of the House who felt it was important to pass those early. Madam Speaker, in order to expedite the business of the House, what happens is that the opposition House leader and myself agree each day as to the bills that the members of the opposition wish to have called in order to debate or pass or do whatever they wish to do with those pieces of legislation, and that is a convenience that has arisen as a result of the large legislative agenda and the fact that there is not much point in calling every bill on the Order Paper if they are only prepared to debate two or three or four of them.

Madam Speaker, as a matter of trying to expedite the business of the House, normally that is what I do. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) sends me a list of the bills he wishes to have called that day, I call those bills, they get debated, and whatever happens, happens to them, but as a matter of expediting House business as opposed to anything else. I did on a number of occasions encourage him to call that bill, Bill 67. I have listed earlier what the result of that was.

Madam Speaker, I think you did the appropriate thing in making your ruling last Thursday, when in fact you saw that there was a gap--the terminology that you used in your ruling--in the rules, one where members of this House have an expectation that if they put a rule into a place, they have a right to expect it to be enforced. They have a right to expect it to come forward for consideration and not hide behind the variety of procedures and other wrangles that can be brought up in order to delay consideration of any piece of legislation. I see no prima facie case for point of privilege at all by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

*(1400)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I , too, was wanting to put a few words on this very important motion that has been brought forward.

Madam Speaker, in Beauchesne's, and I have used this citation in the past and I will repeat it once again this afternoon, and that is Beauchesne's 33, which states that the most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and then to enforce them.

Madam Speaker, what we all have before us is in fact provisional rules which were adopted by each and every member of this Chamber. What I have seen, and tried to sit back in as objective a fashion as I can, is a bit of an art of politics in one sense where we have the official opposition who was wanting to do what it could to prevent the sale of MTS. Even though it was not a clear victory, forcing the government to bring in closure would have at least been something fairly significant because governments in Manitoba have a tradition of not bringing in closure.

The government has a valid argument when it argues and articulates that there was an agreement in principle. I know of that, I participated in those discussions and there is absolutely no doubt that there was an agreement. The rules were supposed to reflect what those discussions that we had were. Unfortunately, the rules do not reflect exactly what we had requested the rules to do. I cite, for example, within the rules it says, whether it is the throne speech, the Budget Debate, the Estimates, it has a mechanism from within the provisional rules that allows for if the time comes to an end, the agreed-upon time such as the Estimates, that all questions would then be put.

Madam Speaker, that sort of a rule was not put in place for the bills. Now, was that something that was overlooked? I think that many in the Chamber would argue that, yes, that in all likelihood was overlooked.

Having said that, I think that it is important. You know, I listened to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) articulate about Speaker Walding. The first thing that came to my mind about Speaker Walding was that was under the old rules, that we are under the provisional rules.

I listened and read your ruling, Madam Speaker, about Speaker Fraser, a very unique situation. What I take out of Speaker Fraser's ruling--and that particular Speaker was not censured for the decision that he made--was the fact that at times there is a need for the Speaker to go beyond the standing order. I would hazard a guess that if you look at all the different Commonwealth countries, it would indeed be extremely rare. This is the first time where I have seen it in the Manitoba Legislature in over eight years.

Madam Speaker, when I look at the rules, even though the agreement was that all legislation would pass by the third Thursday or the last Thursday in November--and that is specified in Rule 3. The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) did make reference to a latter rule, I believe it is 103, that says, would normally pass. There is very little doubt in my mind, in the minds of my colleagues, that all the legislation was to indeed have passed.

Where we are a bit at odds is, did you act prematurely? I would argue that you did act prematurely, prematurely in the sense that if the government this Thursday decided to introduce closure and was frustrated by the combined opposition to see the MTS privatization bill pass, then, Madam Speaker, through the interpretation of the rules, you could interpret that all the legislation was to pass, there was an agreement by all members of this Chamber that every piece of legislation was to pass and the minority in this House was trying to frustrate the rules or frustrate the process in order not to allow the government to accomplish its agenda.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the government did not use all the tools that it had at its means, in particular the motion of closure, to rush through Bill 67. Had they used those rules, had they exhausted the current provisional rules and then you would have come down with the motion--or not necessarily a motion--or put the question--and I am not too sure exactly how that would work--then I believe that you would have been right on in your ruling. But, because you did take it upon yourself to go beyond the standing orders, I think that there is some merit to reflecting on the ruling.

The fear that I have is that, even though it might sound as if I am being supportive to a certain degree of what the New Democratic caucus is proposing, I would not go as far to say that the Speaker should be censured for this particular action, primarily because there is no doubt in my mind that, as provisional rules and the making up of those rules, this is a bit of a learning curve for everyone inside this Chamber. The unfortunate thing is that we might not see these provisional rules in the future as a direct result. I believe that Manitobans are far better served with these provisional rules than we were served under the old rules.

So, to a certain degree, I can sympathize, but I do not necessarily agree with the ruling of the other day. Yet, on the other hand, I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that you should be censured for the actions that you had taken. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I first wish to deal with the technical question as to whether indeed this is a matter of privilege and like to echo the comments made by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), which, I think, indicate very clearly this is a prima facie case of privilege, in particular, the rights of all members of this Legislature. I think it is appropriate and important that this matter of privilege was raised by the member for St. Johns in his capacity as an individual member of the Legislature and while as opposition House leader I know I speak on behalf of all our caucus, what we are in today is a situation in which members not only of the opposition collectively but members of this House individually have had their privileges violated by an unprecedented action that was taken on last Thursday.

I cannot stress how important that is because I believe that you need only look further to Beauchesne 33 which outlines "The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them." No one looking at this matter objectively can do anything other than be of the view that in the provisional rules circumstances were anticipated which would not be normal and that mechanisms were put in place or left in place from the original rules which would allow for anyone in that circumstance to deal with that situation. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that on a more limited debate such as throne and budget speech, we do have set time for votes. Why was there no time set aside for votes on third readings? Because our rules, specifically Rule 2.(4), made specific provisions for circumstances which were not normal, in fact, had a specific provision in place for having the ability to extend a sitting.

I note that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has brought forth such a resolution, but one should note that it basically is the option of the government because the only option that we in the opposition have to move such a motion is in private members' hour and being No. 75 on the list of private members' resolutions, I think we would be here probably in June before it came up in the normal rotation. So the primary responsibility for that rests with the government House leader. Other provisions were kept in place. If this ruling that we now have was to be part of the rules, we would not have had any other reference to moving the previous question. We would not have reference to closure still within the rules, but those provisions are in the rules. So what we have here is not a situation where the House made rules and they are being enforced; what we have now is a situation where the Speaker has made rules at the request of the government, in this case the government House leader.

Well, Madam Speaker, what I find most unfortunate about this circumstance is the degree to which the government seems to be willing to go to vent its frustration about what has happened in this House related to the Manitoba Telephone System. The government House leader now wants to get into private discussions that took place in terms of the ordering of business and I could refer the government House leader to Beauchesne Citation 200 which I think very clearly indicates the government House leader is responsible for the ordering of business. I would point out to the government House leader that even though we request items be considered, that is not always taken into account. In fact, most recently these last two weeks, we have attempted to have our Opposition Day motion debated in this House and the government House leader has refused. I will not comment on which bills we called or did not call.

*(1410)

I would note that this was a rather unusual session in the sense that the government early on in the session, until it was put on the front page of a local newspaper, said they were not going to be speaking to bills. We debated significant bills. I am wondering if the government House leader would really have suggested that we call the MTS bill earlier and not debate other bills. I am wondering how he can explain what difference it would have made when the amendments, the government amendments for a $1.5-billion sale of a public asset for which they have no mandate, were moved on the Tuesday evening, 48 hours before they expected the session to end.

Madam Speaker, if that is not an abnormal circumstance, I do not know what is. I would point at other ministers who incidentally gave notice of the intent of moving amendments. I sat in on the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) on at least one bill, where the Minister of Education gave notice of that. I sat in a situation where the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) actually debated whether he should or should not move in a certain amendment, but not even that courtesy was extended to us. I received, from the government House leader, half an hour before the infamous all-night sitting, a copy of the amendments to the bill.

I just want to focus in on how important the bill was, because this is critical in dealing with how normal the circumstance was. We are dealing with a $1.5-million asset. We are also dealing with pensions, employee pensions, the value of which is about $700 million. I mean, it depends on the calculation, about $700 million. Amendments were brought in 48 hours before the original time, which the government expected this matter to be over, on a $700 million pension plan which affects probably close to 6,000 Manitobans, current retirees and MTS employees.

If you think that is abnormal, there was a memorandum of understanding that was discussed throughout that last Thursday, which all the other bills were dealt with. Every single other bill was dealt with and, at the same time, a memorandum of understanding was negotiated. I commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) for their roles, but I want you to recognize this occurred and was not completed until 10:30 in the evening. In fact, I want to note for the record that at least one employee group was not involved in those negotiations until that very day.

Was that a normal situation? I think not, Madam Speaker. But what is most unusual about this was after the Thursday sitting in which we did have some dispute over the time to be set aside for the further meeting of the committee, we came back in on the Friday, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had already decided to rip up the rules agreement. He was accusing the opposition of breaking its word. He was the one who said, everything is off.

Madam Speaker, what happened on that Friday? The bill was amended. Significant amendments were passed, amendments that had not even been on the table on Thursday, and further protection was put in place for employee pensions and retiree pensions. Now what is interesting is when you move into what has happened in the next few weeks, I would have thought that the government would have recognized what we had said right from the beginning, that this was not a normal circumstance. Instead, they came in Tuesday and they did something I did not expect to see. What did they do? They adjourned the House. Why? Because they could not get the leave provisions accelerated for consideration of Bill 67.

I want to note that because I want you to follow through what has happened the last couple of weeks, because it relates directly to the ruling you brought in on Thursday and why we are into this mess. What did we do? Did we, and I think the term is oft used, obstruct the House? Did we come in and move adjournment? The government moved the adjournment motion. They could have brought in the Opposition Day, something which is our right. It is interesting, our right under the provisional rules, but they would not even do that.

Madam Speaker, it did not stop there. The next thing I know, the government, aided by some of its allies in the media, were talking about wasting $10,000 a day of the public money. We were not ringing the bells. There was no legislative paralysis. All we were doing was asking for the normal provisions of the Legislature for notice to apply to Bill 67. Nothing more than that.

Madam Speaker, I have before me the Order Paper, because I found this perhaps indicative of the kind of mood that has set into the government. It was somehow a waste of government money. What day are we sitting in today? Day 86 of the session. That is not even above the average number of days, and for the government to suggest that we are wasting the people's money--by doing what? Debating and trying to persuade the government to either amend the bill or drop the bill when 68 percent of Manitobans oppose it. I say that is good use of the taxpayers' money.

But I want to go one step further because I think people remember what happened. We had a week of normal business of the House--normal business, nothing abnormal. We brought in 39 amendments once the notice provisions were up on the Monday, and if you look at the amendments, they are substantive amendments. They deal with issues such as pensions still, because that matter has not been resolved. They were substantive amendments. The government even passed one of the amendments we brought in. Supposedly when the bill was all set to go on November 7, they passed an amendment last Monday, one of the amendments that we had moved.

Well, I want to deal with what happened that week. Did the government House leader say there was some kind of legislative paralysis? No. When he moved the matter of order, he could not, and the reference in this case to Speaker Fraser I find to be the most bizarre thing I have ever seen, because if you are going to use a precedent, make sure it applies. Beauchesne 328, which outlines the ruling of the Speaker, dealt with a situation in which there was legislative paralysis, not a case here in Manitoba where we had normal functioning of the House. We were debating the report stage of Bill 67. We were following the rules. There was no legislative paralysis and yet the government House leader said, well, we need this new mechanism; we have to rely on Beauchesne 328. Madam Speaker, you accepted that argument. That was a wrong precedent. Not only was it a wrong precedent in terms of this House, it was wrong in terms of the rules.

The government has had opportunities, and I note for the record, since the government House leader wishes to put on the record private conversations we have had, and I am not saying breaking any confidentialities, but, you know, I have not been contacted by the government House leader, who is responsible for dealing with government House business, since November 7. Does it not occur to anyone across the other side that there was a problem? This is a major bill. You have 68 percent of Manitobans do not want MTS sold off. What did they expect would happen, that we would sit back and not debate this bill, not bring in the amendments that are needed? No way would we do that. But if I can appeal to them in terms of the rules, because they are clearly wrong on the rules, Madam Speaker, you have through your ruling last Thursday, invented rules. There is nothing in this set of rules, provisional rules or the old rules for any time for a recorded vote on any set item. There are provisions in here, and the member for St. Johns outlined those provisions.

But what does it take to get the government to see what it is doing. It seems to be willing to do almost anything, to blame someone else other than itself for the predicament it is in. They had choices. They could have sat down as governments normally do in these matters, assess the situation, recognize this is not normal. They could have talked to the opposition. They did not. They could have used the mechanisms available to them under the rules. They did not. They could have even listened to some words which were actually read some time ago, and I remember an opposition leader talking about trampling on democratic rights and freedoms and trying to work by a manipulation of the rules rather than let debate take place. He, of all people--I wonder if it is probably--driving, I think you know what I am referencing here, said that--he accused the government of the time of not allowing the public to be heard. He said the government was ramming through an initiative that 80 percent of the public opposed. Does that sound familiar, Madam Speaker? Those are the words of the then-Leader of the Opposition and now Premier (Mr. Filmon), the one that has led the way in bringing us to this impasse while you had to enforce closure.

I want to deal with how odious the situation we are in today is. What I wanted to do after an obviously very difficult Thursday is reflect on the ruling that was brought down. I want to note that it is very clear we will not be able to even have the majority of our amendments introduced on report stage because your ruling states that on Wednesday, that is it. If it has not been moved, it is dead--cannot move it.

You know what is interesting, Madam Speaker, it was phrased in terms of allowing the House to decide the matter. I mean, according to the government House leader, and I hope that when he was referencing that, that he is not suggesting the ruling is necessarily something that follows what he wanted. I hope that the government House leader or others on the government side have not written the script for this, because what we end up with on Wednesday, after concurrence motion at four o'clock, according to this supposed rule, when is the vote supposed to take place on third reading? And let us recognize that 24 hours notice is required for third reading, and I can put on the record that under any circumstance we would require that notice. We are going to follow the rules, the real rules of the Manitoba Legislature.

I want to deal with what we were faced with and the exact interpretation of when those votes will take place. I want it on the record because I want the government House leader, after he reflects on what has happened in this House, I want to see if he will stand up in the House again and say, it was a courtesy to give members of the opposition time to debate the matter. Concurrence takes place at 4 p.m. There is a recorded vote. Normally that will be at the end of the day. We might get half an hour of debate on third reading. When is the vote scheduled according to this so-called set of rules? Madam Speaker, 2:45 p.m., Thursday, November 28.

By my calculations, and if you look at normal Question Periods, normal proceedings, I think we will have 15 to 20 minutes to debate the third reading of a major bill, probably the biggest bill in Manitoba, certainly in terms of financial implications, in decades. We will have 15 to 20 minutes to debate that bill on third reading. That is not acceptable. That is not democratic.

*(1420)

Madam Speaker, if I cannot appeal to the government using the rules, which clearly do not include any of these provisions, they are not going to listen to Beauchesne or any other precedents we have in terms of that, if they are not even going to listen to their own words, I would ask that they do one thing and that is talk to the average Manitoban. Ask them if they think that MTS is worth debating and worth fighting for, because I will tell you one thing and this may come as a surprise to members opposite because they have not gone out of their way, they have not had a single public meeting on MTS, they have never ever, ever raised it in an election, and I realize that they do not want necessarily to hear what the people of Manitoba are saying.

I will tell you what they told me this weekend, and they told every single one of our caucus, they said, keep up the fight. The vast majority of Manitobans do not want the Manitoba Telephone System sold off. Keep up the fight. That is why I urge you to accept this matter of privilege. It is the one recourse we have left. If we do not have the rules we can rely on, if we do not have your office, if we can at least get it into some committee of this Legislature, some body that can consider this matter, we can ensure a democratic process. I want to put on the record again, on behalf of every one of our MLAs, something that I stated last Thursday, and I want to say it in a fashion that is as calm and collected as possible. I want to say to the government that what it has done calls into question the legitimacy not only of our functioning in this House but of the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System.

You do not, you should not and I say to the government, you will not be able to sell off a telephone system that is a public asset, one of the largest financial public assets we have. You have no right to do it in this undemocratic way. I want it on the record, because you have no democratic legitimacy and no support from the people of Manitoba for what you are doing.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to put a few words in regard to this very important matter. I have had to think long and hard on this one. I have had to wrestle with both my values and my conscience as to how to vote on this, and I have voted with my convictions. I may not be right. I am not arrogant; I am humble enough to believe that I can be wrong, but I voted with my convictions.

I am not a lawyer, as is the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). I am a police officer who for 25 years has maintained rules, who has interpreted the rules in the form of the laws of Canada. Sometimes when I have taken my interpretation to court I have been wrong. Sometimes I have been right. So I have learned to be humble and not self-righteous and not arrogant in my interpretation of the rules to know that sometimes people wiser than myself--or maybe I have not taken all things into consideration, but in this matter, I have read the rules and I read your ruling.

I have a strong conviction that what has happened here is that the provisional rules fell short. We know what the intent was and, unfortunately, when we drafted the rules it did not give a mechanism in which the matter could come to a vote. What I see your ruling as doing is giving a way for this matter to come to a vote. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said possibly you did that prematurely. I would argue that why do we have to wait till the eleventh hour? Why can we not conduct business in a planned, civilized manner? So I do not see this as doing it prematurely, I see it as looking at what was coming. It was inevitable what was going to happen.

The member for St. Johns talked about that letter of understanding, that agreement was no longer valid. Well, I remember when I was on the Winnipeg Police Association and we were in contract negotiations. During those negotiations we had a stenographer present during all the discussions. Out of those discussions, quite often there would be a letter of understanding drafted to state what the agreement was in those negotiations. From that letter of understanding, a contract was written, signed and agreed to. Later in the year, after the contract had been signed, things occurred which we had not considered or that the contract was not too clear of. What is the first thing we went to? We went to see what was the intent in the letter of understanding, and if the letter of understanding was not clear we even went back to the stenographer's notes on what the conversation was and what we agreed to.

Now there is no doubt in my mind--it is common sense, and as I say, I am not a lawyer, I am just using common sense and my understanding--that everybody in this House knew what we were agreeing to in December when we signed that agreement that at a certain point all the legislation would come to a vote. Unfortunately, when we drafted the rules we did not do it as well as we could have. But do you know, that is interesting because--although I will not comment on Bill 67 but--how many bills have passed through this Chamber that have been perfect? Is there a single bill that could not have been improved if we would have spent more time on it, and is there a single bill that there was not another word to say about it?

But we decide in a civilized manner through agreements between House leaders how much time to spend on each bill, and eventually it comes to the point where we make it into law. But do you know what? We could amend those laws. In a civilized democratic process, there comes a time for the debate to end, and there comes a time to put the matter before the Chamber for a vote.

If the official opposition were looking for opportunities to bring all their amendments forward, let us look at who controlled when that bill went to committee. Who controlled that? Who had the opportunity to put up all their members as speakers, to allow their speakers to speak for five minutes or maybe they could have put a speaker on every other bill just as long?

So it was a strategic maneuver to say when that bill went to committee, and they decided at what point that bill would go to committee and how much time it would have. They decided. So if they want to be pointing a finger at why we do not have enough time, why did they not speak to that bill first and put it through the committee at the earliest stages in the session if it was that important?

Then when the government offered to sit the following day on November 8 to continue the debate, if they really wanted to debate it, why did they not give leave to allow that? We have had since November 8 to debate. Why have we not? We have been offered to sit on Fridays. The government has asked leave to waive private members' hour. So the assertion that we are limiting debate, well, you have limited debate on that bill by not taking advantages. You have limited the bill. You have limited the bill on a number of occasions by using the tactics, and they are tactics. They are rules that we use, whether you use grievances each day. We have so many hours each day to sit. Do you want to use those hours to debate Bill 67? Well, then why are you bringing up grievances, matters of privilege, if you really want to debate Bill 67, if that is your real purpose?

So as I said, I vote with my convictions. I believe as a point of honour that we decided that all legislation would come to a vote by the third Thursday in the month, and I will stick to that intent. No matter what the lawyers and others interpret, I know what was meant.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak briefly about the matter of privilege that was raised by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and of course indicate my support for everything that he said in his very articulate speech.

I would like to begin by briefly rebutting something that the member for The Maples said. There has been discussion by the government and the member for The Maples about the way in which bills are debated, and implying that it is entirely up to the opposition as to what bills they call and how long they speak and how many speakers they put up on a bill and implying that the government has no role in this whatsoever. Well, I have been here for six years and I remember a very good government House leader, the former member for Morris, Mr. Clayton Manness. He was a good House leader. He was very fair, but he could also be tough when the occasion demanded it. I can remember him giving the opposition warning that if they did not put up speakers he was going to deny leave, and he was fair because he gave us a week's notice. He said, if you do not start putting up speakers, we will deny leave.

*(1430)

If the government was anxious about getting Bill 67 to committee, that was something that they could have used. Surely the government House leader knew that. The government House leader, currently, was here when the former government House leader was here, probably heard him say that. They could have said, if you are not going to put up speakers on Bill 67, we will deny leave. Basically, that forces the opposition to put up speaker after speaker in order to continue debate on that one bill or they lose the bill, and the government chose not to do that. So they should not blame the opposition for the timeliness in which they put up or do not put up speakers on Bill 67.

I was part of the ad hoc committee that drew up the new rules. As the government well knows, it was a lengthy process. It took about five years, and it was an on-and off-again process. We met for a number of years and the government said they were not going to proceed, and then the government called us back again and we did proceed. We came to a memorandum of agreement, and a very interesting thing happened. As the government members well know, whenever the ad hoc committee had a proposal they took it to caucus, and we took proposals to our caucus and it went back and forth. We thought that we had agreement on everything in our caucus, and I am sure the government thought they had agreement on everything in their caucus. But what happened when we got to the formal rules committee was that there were changes, for example, on committees, on private members' hour and how private members' bills and resolutions would be selected. We thought we were going to proceed the way we had agreed to, but all of a sudden we discovered there were people that had legitimate concerns about it. We got bogged down in the formal rules committee of the House and we dropped the whole procedure, a whole new procedure on choosing private members' bills and resolutions for debate and votes at the very last minute.

I think if we were to compare the memorandum of understanding with the rules that were put into place by this Legislature, you would see that there is a difference there. So I would suggest that, as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) said, the only thing that governs our deliberations now are the rules that we have agreed to and that they take precedence over any memorandum or understanding that was previously in place.

This government had a number of other levers at its disposal in addition to the one that I mentioned about denying leave. They certainly could have had agreement by the House leaders. They certainly could have used closure, and they chose not to. That was their choice. They could have used closure. We would have debated one bill until two o'clock in the morning and it would have been all over. In fact, we anticipated we--our supporters wanted us to keep this going for six months and we said, we will keep it going as long as possible, but the government has a majority and the government will decide when this is over. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said, let it go till Christmas, and we anticipated that at a certain time we would no longer be able to put up more speakers because the government would use the rules to bring in closure.

The government could have brought in speed-up. Speed-up was referred to by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). I would point out that means that the House could sit in the morning, the House could sit in the afternoon and the House could sit in the evening. I believe the rules say at what hour the evening sitting begins. It does not say what hour the evening sitting ends. The government could have kept us here till midnight, till 6 a.m., debating one bill, and certainly they would have exhausted all the amendments very quickly had they done that, but they chose not to have speed-up, Rule 75(4), extended sitting hours.

And finally, the government could have used Rule (4)(b), the motion to extend the session. The government chose not to extend the session. They could have used their majority. In fact, we are into a very unusual situation here because the government has a majority. The government can use the rules to do what they want to do simply by having a vote and extending the session. The government can use their majority to do almost anything within the rules, and they will call for Yeas and Nays or we will call for Yeas and Nays and we will certainly lose the vote because the government has the numbers.

They chose not to do that and that is why we are calling this "cowardly closure," because the government did not use all of the means at its disposal and there were many. We have listed at least four things that the government could have done which they chose not to, and the fifth one being to deny leave to let a bill stand. So there were at least five things that this government could have done, and they chose not to exercise any of them, much to our surprise.

We have been telling our supporters for weeks that we did not think it was going to go on very long. We knew about the deadline. We knew that it was going to be--[interjection] We could not trust this government.

An Honourable Member: We were right about that one.

Mr. Martindale: And we were right about that. So what happened while we were still here debating amendments and even approving an amendment--in fact, I happened to be in the Chamber when the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay) stood up and agreed to our amendment. We were very surprised that they should do that, although I guess we should not have been because the amendment came from the mission statement of the Manitoba Telephone System. It was a good amendment and we supported it, and I think neither the government nor the Speaker can say that we have been obstructionist. We have been willing to continue in an orderly way to debate the amendments. We are prepared to debate third reading.

We have called for Opposition Day. The government is the one that has denied us the opportunity to speak on Opposition Day. The government is the one that adjourned the House after Question Period, an extremely unusual thing to do, not to let debate continue on a bill after Question Period. The government could have chosen to do many, many things at its disposal, but it did not. In fact, it went the opposite way and brought in some bizarre things like adjourning the House.

*(1440)

I would invite any of the members opposite to join us on the matter of privilege and put their remarks on the record.

In conclusion, I would like to support what our member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has said, and our House leader, and refer this to the rules committee. I think this can be solved by the referral because we will have people there who are familiar with the rules. Perhaps a compromise can be worked out. Perhaps we can make suggestions for revising the provisional rules for the next time and I think that if this happens, cooler heads will prevail and we can come to an amicable resolution. In fact, that is probably the most appropriate place where a compromise agreement on how to end this session might take place.

As the House leader on our side suggests, maybe that is the place to get an agreement on how to extend the session and when to extend the session so the government has some idea of when their bill is going to be passed. Surely the investment dealers, the brokers and their stockbroker friends want to know when this bill is going to be passed and, at this point, I do not think the government can give them very serious suggestions as to when it will pass. I think it would be in everybody's best interest if we could come to a compromise, if we could agree on how the bill is going to pass and when it is going to pass in a way that respects the rules of the House and does not attempt to get around the rules of the House and find some extraneous way for the government to get out of their predicament. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: I will take the point of privilege raised. It is a serious matter and I will consult with the authorities, take the matter under advisement and report back to the House.