MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

Nonconfidence in Presiding Officer

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege and, as are the rules of our House, it will be followed by a substantive motion.

My matter of privilege, I believe, meets the basic qualifications set out in Beauchesne and our rules, first of all, that the subject matter rarely comes up, and it is with regret that I will be raising this particular matter of privilege.

It also, I believe, meets the provisions of Beauchesne Citations 114 and 115, which require that this matter be raised as soon as possible and, essentially, I will be attempting to not only make the prima facie case of privilege but also recommend that this matter be put directly to the House.

This arises partly out of the previous ruling, and I want to stress just how concerned members on our side are about not only the ruling but a number of rulings that have been made, Madam Speaker. That is why we are using this mechanism, about the only appropriate mechanism for raising this kind of matter, which will be followed by a substantive motion, to put on the record our very grave concerns about what is happening in this House.

We just dealt with a matter that involved comments made by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) that are unprecedented in this House. I have never heard a member accuse any other member, as the Minister of Education did in this House on May 14 and May 15. She accused members of this side of the House of supporting attempted murderers, bombing and slashing of tires. In fact, between the 14th and 15th she went from stating murderers to stating that it was attempted murderers--hardly a clarification that gives any comfort to members of this side of the House. Everyone heard that.

I would like to table a letter which I received signed by Edda Pangilinan and it was signed also by many other Manitobans. I would like to table copies for the House. This Manitoban wrote to me--and she was a home care worker and we may remember there were many home care workers in the Legislature at the time--to complain, and I quote about “the very grave accusation of the Minister of Education Linda McIntosh when she told you that”--and these are her quotes--“'You the NDP's support the attempted murderers, bombing and slashing of tires.'” She went on in the letter to say that she found this absolutely incredible that this kind of statement could be made by the Minister of Education. I might add, that many home care workers took that comment personally because, indeed, they were involved in a labour dispute and they were extremely, extremely frustrated by the comment. But beyond that, she expressed concerns about the foolishness of the comment, the irresponsibility and also reminded--and I will quote, “We must remember that as Minister of Education, Miss McIntosh should be role model among the children and to all citizenry and act accordingly.” Everyone heard those comments.

Madam Speaker, there were disruptions on the 14th and 15th in this House, and the disruptions came because the Minister of Education made comments on the 14th. She made comments on the 15th. She made comments on her feet. She made comments in her seat that were heard by members on this side of this House, by members in the gallery. She had the opportunity to withdraw those comments. She never once withdrew those comments and even again today she did not withdraw those comments. I want to say that that is absolutely unacceptable on behalf of any member. All members of this House are honourable members. All members of this House oppose violence, slashing tires, bombings. For this minister to make an accusation against me, as a member of this House or any member of this House, of any nature of that type is absolutely unacceptable.

* (1540)

Given the evidence, I would suggest to you the only appropriate thing, if this minister was not to show I think the appropriate integrity of standing and removing those comments, would have been, Madam Speaker, for you to have ruled her comments out of order. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time, and I find it amazing that in this House we cannot talk about racist policies, but apparently the Minister of Education can accuse people of supporting attempted murderers, bombing and slashing of tires. That is absolutely unacceptable.

I want to refer, Madam Speaker, to one of the key roles that the office of Speaker plays, Beauchesne Citation 168, and that is in enforcing the authority of the House. In fact, it states--and I will not read in its entirety--but the chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House are authority and impartiality. When we are accused by a minister of the Crown with those kind of despicable statements, we ask two things only of the Speaker and that is use your authority in an impartial way and have order restored to this House in the only way possible, and that is by having those remarks expunged from the record and have the minister make an absolute unconditional abject apology to all members of the House. That is the only way that we can ensure impartiality and authority.

Madam Speaker, what really frustrates me again is if you look at the tradition of our parliamentary system, we have a long tradition indeed in this House of healthy debates and indeed at times disruptions, but I have never yet heard any member of this House accuse anyone else of supporting attempted murder, and some of the members apparently take some--they smile at those comments, and you know what? Those comments were absolutely offensive.

But, Madam Speaker, in your ruling that you have just brought forward to the House in which you indicated there was no point of order, I want to take grave concern with the statement, and I quote here from the ruling, that I am quite sure that all members will agree that the events of May 14 and 15 were not this House's finest hours, and I would encourage members on both sides of the Chamber to exercise caution in the language they use in exchanges across the floor.

Madam Speaker, no one on this side of the House accused any member of that side of the House of supporting violence, or bombings, or slashing tires. Not once.

Madam Speaker, if you are to direct your authority as Chair, it should be to the side where the disruption originated, a disruption that was the subject of this letter which was seen by everyone in this House, heard by everyone in this House, including members of the public. The appropriate thing would have been to direct the comments where they came from.

You know, Madam Speaker, when any member of this House on our side makes comments that are disruptive, we accept that. I, on occasion, have had to withdraw comments, but on May 14 and May 15 there was only one source of the disruption, the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), only one source of disruption.

Madam Speaker, if members of this House are not to understand that members of the opposition are going to take objection to it being said that they support attempted murderers, if they do not understand that, then they have no sense of what our parliamentary system is all about, which is to recognize that all members are honourable members.

I have never yet, Madam Speaker, never once in the years I have been in this Chamber, ever made any kind of accusation against any member of the opposition of that nature, nor has any member of our caucus, and the bottom line is that the minister could have withdrawn and she did not.

But, Madam Speaker, in your ruling, you admonished both sides of the House. This has happened on other occasions as well where we have raised points of order citing disruptions by members opposite, and then in the point of order we have been admonished ourselves.

Madam Speaker, there are times where there is one offending party. It was clear in the evidence with the Minister of Education that she was the offending party to the disruption. She confirmed it not only from her seat, but also the comments are included in Hansard. There are witnesses throughout the Chamber, including members of the public.

The appropriate thing, Madam Speaker, on this point of order, which we took very seriously, would have been for you to use your authority in an impartial way and ask the minister to withdraw, not to admonish members on this side of the disruption because we make no apologies for having stood up to the kind of comments, the despicable comments, put forward by the Minister of Education on the record. We make no apologies for that, and until you enforce, use your office to enforce the authority of this House to bring members such as the Minister of Education to order, or the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) who made similar comments in committee, although I understand he has in the past been brought to order and had to withdraw, until you use the balance of the authority and impartiality, we will not have this House brought to order, we will not have decorum. Because what are we supposed to do on our side of the Chamber? Let the minister continue and make these types of comments? Let the Minister of Health continue to make these kinds of comments? Have Manitobans like the individual I mentioned before see what is happening in this House, and we are not talking about minor disruptions. We are talking about major, major, major accusations.

That is why I am rising on this matter of privilege because I believe this goes to the very root of privilege which is the authority of the House. I want to indicate that it is with regret that our substantive motion is going to state our lack of confidence in you as a Speaker, and I think there is a precedent, Madam Speaker, in raising this matter on a matter of privilege. In fact, Speaker Walding was subject to a similar motion by the then-Conservative House leader. At that time, since the role of the Speaker is to decide on normal situations with a prima facie case, but given the obvious difficulty involving the Speaker at that time, Speaker Walding put the motion directly to the House, and I would strongly recommend that that take place.

But before moving the motion, I want to ask once again not just, Madam Speaker, in terms of fairness, in terms of rulings, but ask that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) realize the gravity of what is happening, that the Minister of Education does have the opportunity, as others in this House do on a regular basis. She can withdraw those comments. I know members on her side, members on our side, do that frequently. The First Minister (Mr. Filmon) may make comments that we disagree with, but I think he has withdrawn comments on a regular basis in this House.

I believe that would have contributed very significantly to avoiding this situation, but when we have a situation in which we have a Minister of Education makes comments like that on the record, and when we have a situation where we have a ruling in which we are being admonished for the disruptions as much as the offending party in this case, which is the Minister of Education, and when this is not the first time this has happened, and when we on the one hand cannot talk about racist policies--not racist individuals but racist policies--but the Minister of Education can accuse us of supporting attempted murderers, bombings and tire slashings, we have no other option, and I move to move this motion.

I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that this House has lost confidence in the Speaker.

Madam : Order, please. When a matter of privilege is raised in the House there are two things that the Speaker has to judge. One is whether it is the earliest possible time for bringing in that motion and secondly whether there appears to be a prima facie case as to the motion of privilege. In this case I believe that both conditions apply.

I believe that the subject matter of this particular motion is sufficiently important that the House would want to deal with it at the first possible opportunity, and it would not serve the purpose of this House to have this particular motion hanging over the proceedings for the next little while. I will therefore leave the motion to the House.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is indeed a very serious matter that has been raised from the member for Thompson. The Liberal party takes it quite seriously. You know, a couple of things come to mind. I believe that the New Democratic caucus over a period of time have tried to be able to demonstrate that the Speaker, being you, has not been doing a good job as a Speaker. In essence, what they are saying is that they would like to see you replaced with yet another Speaker, and I could speculate as to whom that Speaker might be.

I have had dealings now over the last eight years with both you and the previous Speaker. I sat very patiently listening to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and I would ask that the New Democrats do likewise. In my eight years, if I was to go over the negotiations that I have had both with you and the previous Speaker, even though you and I have had some fairly serious disagreements, we still have disagreements, and some of those disagreements is something in which we will strive to change, such as concerns regarding Question Period, concerns regarding other issues such as when we can speak and when we cannot speak as a political party. Those issues we will continue to address, but when I reflect on Speakers, I find that you are no more difficult than the former Speaker before you.

* (1550)

If the opposition feels that you are a more difficult Speaker, I am at loss in trying to find out how it is or who it is that they are comparing it to, because I have been in essence discussing and having discussions with Speakers for the last eight years. I have found both Speakers to be relatively fair in their approach in dealing with us even though I have had numerous complaints. But I would say that you are no worse nor any better than the previous Speaker. But to move a motion of nonconfidence in the Speaker is a very serious matter. I look at the ruling that you just finished coming down with. You stated: I could not hear any comments made by the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) along the line of what the opposition House leader referenced in his point of order.

Madam Speaker, if all members believe in the integrity of each and every one of us, we should believe what it is that you are saying as being truthful. You listened to the tape. [interjection] The Leader of the New Democratic Party says it is in Hansard. Well, I can give you the same identical example with the former Speaker, where that former Speaker said that he did not hear it and it appeared in Hansard. I can clearly show that. Why did the New Democrats not raise a matter of privilege and nonconfidence then?

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about is words which you have put on Hansard with respect to this particular ruling, and what they are doing is they are calling into question what you heard on the tape. The question that I would pose, and I look at my friends in the New Democratic caucus: Did any one of them appeal to listen to the tape? Did any one of them? I know, when I did, I did appeal. Did any members of the New Democratic caucus appeal to listen to the tape? I think that is a critical--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. This is a very serious matter, and the honourable member for Inkster has been recognized.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on what the member from Burrows (Mr. Martindale) said from his seat. He said, we were never requested. Well, you do not have to wait until you are requested to listen to a tape. If you are calling into question something you said, you can approach the Speaker and ask. I have done it in the past. The New Democrats know that they can, too, they also can do that, but it does not fit their agenda, their personal agenda, whether it is to do whatever they can to dump--and when you are an opposition party of 23, you can be very vocal, you can be very loud, you can be very intimidating, and they have been quite intimidating against you as the Speaker. We have seen that from our perspective. The New Democratic Party has been.

Point of Order

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, this is a very serious matter, and I would ask for you to call the member for Inkster to order. We have a motion before the House. He should not be making accusations about intimidation. I would like to ask you to call the member for Inkster to order and address the matter, a very serious matter, before the House.

Mr. Lamoureux: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I am speaking as I see it. The member from Thompson does not have a point of order, as he regularly does not have in Question Period. It is a dispute over the facts. What I see is what I am saying. [interjection] Well, then cite, Steve. Cite it from--[interjection] If I--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable member for Inkster that the motion before the House is a motion of censure against the Speaker, and I would ask that he keep his comments relevant to the motion.

* * *

Mr. Lamoureux: The New Democratic caucus as a whole has been doing what they can in order to try to undermine you, Madam Speaker. [interjection] It is not against the--well, if we take a look at Beauchesne, and maybe that will relax members from the New Democratic caucus, if we look on page 149, Beauchesne's 6th Edition, Citation 491, “The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable.”

The incident which the member for Thompson refers to, he tries to say that, look, it is just the one side of the House that is bringing up areas that would be unparliamentary. I sat back, as other members, and there is heckling that goes on back and forth, quite frankly. I have heard opposition members that say, for example, that the minister is corrupt, that the minister is in the pockets of so and so and so on. We even had the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), who stood up and apologized after making one statement and we applauded the minister. But you see, Madam Speaker, you can say, virtually in any Question Period you could find something that is unparliamentary and bring it up as saying, that is unparliamentary, the member should not have said that.

Well, a lot depends in terms of the context in which it is being said, and that is something which has to be taken into consideration. If we are looking at a Question Period where it gets somewhat uncomfortable in the sense that you have members from both sides of the House participating in heckling from across the side, well, you cannot say that it is all one individual's fault. I can recall when I have seen members from the New Democratic Party virtually out of their seats standing on the third there yelling over the side the Chamber and along with one of the ministers doing the same thing. That does not look good for the decorum of this particular Chamber, and the Speaker does what one can to try to bring things back to order.

Well, Madam Speaker, I look at the ruling that you have made and you, in essence, said that you reviewed the tape, you did not hear anything on the tape, and that is, in essence, what you are reporting. Now, if we do not believe that you are being accurate in what you said, then we are saying that you are in essence misleading this House.

An Honourable Member: What is in Hansard?

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, even if it is in Hansard, the question is, did the Speaker hear it? That is what the ruling is about. Madam Speaker, that is something which the New Democratic Party should have done, is listen to the tape, make some observations to the Speaker. That is what in essence has been lacking, and the intimidation that we have seen over the last number of days is a serious attempt to undermine your authority, and in essence we have even seen a waste of time.

* (1600)

Like, we just sat through bells. We have the opposition and the government that want to be able to sit in the Estimates process, and then the bells ring for an hour, well, on more than one occasion. Yet we as a caucus of three will be asked for leave in order to sit additional hours in order to accommodate additional Estimates time when many of the things could have been resolved as a question of division. It would have had the same ultimate outcome as having a recorded vote, and we would have been in discussing the Estimates or putting forward questions and answers--[interjection] It has a lot to do with the motion.

If the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) would have listened, she would understand that, but rather, Madam Speaker, when you were making the ruling, the member for Wellington was yelling and pointing from her seat her thoughts of the Speaker. Well, you know, it goes both ways and the New Democrats have to realize that at some point in time, like we did last June. We actually had to go and sit down with the Speaker's Office to try to negotiate some sort of a role within Question Period. Even the official opposition sits down with the government House leader and the Speaker in order to negotiate what happens within Question Period and outside of Question Period, but this is something in which, from what I understand, is very important in terms of parliamentary tradition.

When you talked about parliamentary tradition, you made reference to the fact that there is heckling that occurs. We agree there is heckling that occurs and it goes both ways. If you dish out the heckling, you better be prepared to receive the heckling. The New Democrats are not prepared to receive the heckling. Every Question Period, we could stand up just as often as the New Democrats do on a point of order to talk about problems that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) stands up and points out with the government. Well, yes, the government is wrong in 90 percent of the times when the member for Thompson points it out. If we stood up every time that the New Democrats were wrong, we would be on our feet just as often as the member for Thompson is on his feet. Yet--[interjection] and some of them challenge us to do it. Well, Madam Speaker, maybe that is what we will just have to do, and then you will be coming in making rulings on all three political parties that more often. But having--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) when he says he does not like to hear about garbage. I believe that this is, in fact, a very serious motion. I believe that the New Democrats should have caucused this particular motion and thought it through.

Why is this motion being moved at this point in time? Demonstrate to us, to the Liberal caucus, why it is that you believe that this Speaker does not have the confidence of this House? You believe, as a political party, that she does not have your confidence because it does not fit your personal agenda, whatever it might be. From our perspective, and from my personal perspective of being someone that has dealt with Speakers for the past eight years, there is a certain amount of negotiations that have to occur between Speaker and representatives of each political party.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe for a moment that you have been given the opportunity to be able to be the Speaker for the official opposition, not because of you, but because of the New Democrats' inability to be able to sit down and try to negotiate in good faith more than anything else. That is the reason why we have this motion here today. It is because we have an official opposition that is getting frustrated with their inability to be an effective opposition and, as a result of that, what they are trying to do is, they are trying to make issues where in this particular case an issue is not to be made. They have an excellent opportunity to be able to make issues of the day. They have nine on average, eight, nine questions, and if they utilized those questions, if they used those tools that they had with them, then we would not have to see a motion of this nature.

Madam Speaker, this is how I am going to conclude my remarks, and I know that the New Democrats will be happy to hear this. This is how I would conclude. Sitting in here, I have had other members in different ways, members of the government at times has recognized it, members of even the official opposition recognize that there is a certain amount of intimidation that occurs. I do believe that there is even intimidation that has occurred during my comment on the matter of privilege, where some are not content with what it is that I am saying, where they disagree for whatever reasons.

One thing I do know, Madam Speaker, and that is that I am not going to be intimidated by any group of individuals or any individual. I will say what I believe is accurate and what is fair. I believe that you as the Speaker of this Chamber should not be intimidated by the official opposition even though they have 23 members inside this Chamber. When we see, for example, the Speaker trying to get decorum inside the Chamber, and we see the New Democrats and the government yelling and heckling from their seats as you attempt to get decorum--and at times we, too, do heckle in the Liberal caucus. I, for one, do my fair share of heckling, but do you know something? I am also prepared to receive the heckling. Therein lies the difference.

* (1610)

If you are prepared to criticize someone on the opposite side of the bench, whether it is government to opposition or opposition to government, or Liberals to NDP and vice versa, Liberals to government and vice versa, if you are prepared to dish it out, you better be prepared to receive it, because the bottom line is, according to Beauchesne, it is the context in which things are put into place. If it were up to the New Democrats, what they would like to see, Madam Speaker, is for you to step down as the Speaker of this Chamber.

We in the Liberal caucus do not believe that that is necessary, and New Democrats can say whatever they want. I have heard them say this is kissing up and whatever it is they want to classify it, Madam Speaker, but, quite frankly, I did not see one New Democrat who was standing up for the Liberal caucus at the beginning of the session when we were forced to go without being able to ask questions, and we did not hear any sympathetic ears. We did what parliamentary tradition has clearly demonstrated in the past, and that parliamentary tradition in history was that we go and we negotiate what it is that we can possibly get, and if we did not accept or agree with it, we would continue to lobby with whatever tools and mechanisms that we had.

To move a motion of nonconfidence in the Speaker, I believe it was absolutely essential that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) bring forward information that would clearly demonstrate that the Speaker is incompetent and unable to rule this House in a fair fashion.

I would challenge the New Democrats, whether it is right here or in front of Jennifer Dundas or any other member of the media, to come in front of any individual and show me how this Speaker, in what way is worse than the former Speaker. Madam Speaker, I make that challenge in hopes that, in fact, they will accept it because, in the last eight years, I have had hours and hours of negotiations and I have got a pile of examples that I can give.

I have an exact same example of what the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is talking about today, Madam Speaker, that I could cite, and that is where the member for Pembina, the former Health minister, Mr. Don Orchard, stood up and said something and I took great exception to it and what I did is, I stood up and I said, geez, Mr. Speaker, I want to hear the tape. The member for St. Boniface went to listen to the tape. It was not on the tape, yet it appeared in Hansard.

You know, there are endless examples that are there. Why did the New Democratic Party or caucus not approach us, Madam Speaker, and say, here are the concerns that we have with respect to the Speaker and then try to ensure that there is unanimous support?

That is absolutely essential. If you had all members on the opposition side of the House concurring or agreeing that in fact you are not doing the job that you have been mandated to do, then I think that there would be some potential merit to it. But that never occurred, and one would have anticipated on a motion that is as serious as this particular motion that there would have been more dialogue, there would have been more examples of where it is that you have been biased.

Madam Speaker, I have complaints. I have had opportunity to meet with you and I have expressed the opinion, you know, that at times I think you need to look a little bit more at the Conservative government when you are criticizing and I think that is a valid complaint. We will continue to lobby for some of the changes that we believe are necessary inside this Chamber, but we do not support the motion that the New Democratic Party has brought forward and in fact if they were honourable, quite frankly, they would withdraw the motion.

Failing that, I hope that at least one of the New Democratic Party will take up the challenge that I have put forward and try to convince me why it is that a motion of nonconfidence in this Speaker is more warranted than a motion of nonconfidence in the previous Speaker, Madam Speaker. Both Speakers have in essence been fair, and the opposition parties, along with government, including the Liberal Party inside this Chamber have a responsibility to sit down and work with the Speaker in doing what we can and, if we are not satisfied with the results, to continue to lobby.

A good example of that would have been, Madam Speaker, had you not recognized the Liberal Party for a question in Question Period, I would have continued to stand up every day inside during Question Period at every question, and I would have used other tactics prior to have gone this far. [interjection] Well, you know, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) brings up a point which I believe he regrets he has already said. I am going to bring it up because it is very important, because it is something which the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and I have heard time and time again.

You know, the New Democrats and the Tories are very disappointed with the treatment that the federal Tories and the federal New Democrats get in Ottawa. You would not believe how many times I have heard it from both sides of this Chamber in terms of, well, why should we be sympathetic to you when in fact, Madam Speaker, look how bad you guys are being to us in Ottawa.

Well, I want to remain relevant to the motion, so that is something which I could talk about for a while. I do not feel that it is necessary to talk for a while on this particular motion, given its seriousness and, Madam Speaker, I would encourage the New Democrats to rethink--you know, even if they want to go ahead and ring the bells again, I guess they can ring the bells again. Let us ring for an hour, whatever it might take in order for them to re-caucus, because I am sure that the taxpayers' dollars are somewhat on the top of their minds, but I will leave it that.

I appreciate the patience of the House in terms of listening to me, and I trust and hope that you will digest all of the information that has been presented to you prior to making any sort of a decision. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, this is a very serious issue raised for the second time, I believe, in this session, and that is a motion of censure against the Speaker.

Notwithstanding all of the allegations and comments and so on that have gone on before, the fact of the matter is that member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) made no prima facie case. Madam Speaker, I refer to your ruling. It said: “I listened to the tapes of the proceedings on several occasions and I was unable to make out any comments of the Minister of Education other than what appears in Hansard.”

Madam Speaker, Hansard is the official documented version of what transpires in this Legislative Assembly. If we are going to quote from Hansard at all, then we have to collectively believe that Hansard accurately reflects what occurs in this Chamber. Hansard is transcribed from audio tapes that occur as a result of the electronic information gathering system that forms part of our deliberations here in this Chamber.

The fact of the matter is that nowhere in Hansard, nowhere on the tapes, from what your ruling says, were any specific allegations claimed by the member for Thompson attributed to the Minister of Education. So, for the member for Thompson to stand up and suggest that this needed to be expunged from the record, it is not on the record. There is nothing to expunge, if we believe that the tapes and the resulting transcription from the tapes of Hansard is in fact an accurate reflection of what occurs in this Chamber. So certain words are attributed to “An Honourable Member” in the Hansard, but not to the Minister of Education. So the member for Thompson stood up and made all kinds of allegations related principally to his point of order raised on May 15. Now all those allegations were made again, and certain comments were made with respect to the allegations again. The fact of the matter is, there is no prima facie case because there is nothing on the record to expunge, nothing on the record attributed to the Minister of Education.

In my view, there is no prima facie case; there is no point of privilege. It should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Ashton: On the motion, and for the government House leader, the Speaker has already put the motion to the House, so we are dealing with the motion as it stands.

I place my comments on the record. I think everyone in this House knows what the Minister of Education said, and in fact that is reflected in the Hansard. I refer again, and perhaps if the government House leader has not seen this letter from a member of the public who was in the gallery, it was very clear.

* (1620)

I just wanted to respond to a couple of the comments from the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I want to indicate, first of all, that we in this House, in the New Democratic Party, are the opposition. This is our forum. We believe--[interjection] Well, to the member for Inkster, this is our forum. As members of the Legislature, it is very important for us to assure fair treatment in this House. I want to say to the member for Inkster that this why we have raised this--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Ernst: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, far be it from me to want to restrict debate of any kind in this House, but the fact of the matter is, the member for Thompson had his opportunity to speak earlier in putting his motion and in putting his point of privilege.

Now I would seek your guidance with respect to an additional opportunity for him to speak again. If that is the case, we may well be debating here the rest of the afternoon.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, indeed I dealt with the fact, and in my opinion the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is now speaking to the motion. I made the ruling that we should be dealing with this immediately so as not to have it hanging over the House, and my particular comments were that he did deal with it in the first possible opportunity, and it would not serve the purpose of this House to have this particular motion hanging over the proceedings for the next while. I will therefore leave the motion to the House was my ruling on whether there was a prima facie case established. So now it is my understanding that the honourable member for Thompson is speaking to the motion, and all members, should they desire, have that same right.

* * *

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, indeed I am speaking to the motion. I want to indicate to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that his comments create a great deal of concern. Whatever our views on this particular motion or matters before this House, I think the member for Inkster should understand that when it comes to the principles of this House and the way this House functions, the position of our caucus is, that is not negotiable. That may be something that is news to the Liberals and the member for Inkster who has been talking about negotiating matters. We are not talking about how many questions one received. We are talking about the ability of members of this House to function.

I also want to indicate, particularly to the member for Inkster, how he can even talk about taking things in context. Accusing people of supporting attempted murderers, of bombings and slashing tires, can only be taken in one context, and it was inappropriate. It was on the record. It is recorded in Hansard. [interjection] It is in Hansard. The government House leader should read what is in Hansard. Everyone in this House, members of the public know what was said. I still wonder why the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) did not do the right thing and stand up and withdraw those comments. That would have solved a lot of the difficulties that you, Madam Speaker, now find yourself in.

I leave, Madam Speaker, my final comments. I really regret having to bring this motion before the House. I wish this matter and other similar matters had been dealt with before, and I plead with the Minister of Education to do what she did not do on May 15, which the person I read the letter in on the record said, show an example to the people of Manitoba. Do the right thing and withdraw those despicable comments now so that we can get on with the business of the House.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, as has been indicated by our House leader and other members, this is an extremely serious matter that has been raised before this House and this Chamber. I think it is important to point out, as our House leader has done, there is nothing that has to be withdrawn as it relates to the accusations made. You have clearly ruled on the matter of which the evidence that you had before you, and I think the other point that has to be raised and raised again is, the members of the opposition, if they had questions as to the tapes, have every opportunity to ask to hear those tapes if they are not satisfied as to what has been presented. That is obvious that it has not been done.

We, Madam Speaker, the government of this province, have all the confidence in the world in your fair and honest judgment, and we will stand to support you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. It has been moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that this House has lost confidence in the Speaker.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Mr. Ashton: On division, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On division. The motion is accordingly defeated.