Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.

On November 18, the government House leader rose on a point of order requesting a ruling on the interpretation and implementation of Rule 102. In making the request, the key points in his submission were: Rule 102.(1) requires all government bills to receive third reading not later than the last day of the fall sitting; on November 12, I as Speaker had ruled that according to our Rule 2.(3)(a), November 28 was to be the last day of the fall sitting; Rule 102.(1) does not provide a mechanism to bring a bill to a vote by the adjournment hour of 5:30 p.m. on November 28.

The government House leader proposed that a series of steps be identified in order to give effect to Rule 102.(1).

I would like to acknowledge and thank the honourable government House leader (Mr. Ernst), the honourable opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton), the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) for their contributions and the positions they advanced.

Rule 102.(1) does say that all government bills will normally receive a vote on third reading not later than the last day of the fall sitting. There are exceptions set out in Rules 102.(2) and (3), but Bill 67 does not fall into those exceptions. The December 22, 1995, memorandum of understanding is even stronger in its language as it provides that all bills introduced in the spring sitting "will proceed to a vote on third reading and Royal Assent not later than the final day of the Fall Sitting."

It appears that the issue of how the various stages of a bill are to be completed so that the bill can receive third reading on the final day of the fall sitting was not contemplated when the provisional rules were adopted. Accordingly, there is a gap in the rules.

As your Speaker, I feel that ideally the House should be providing a solution, and in my opinion, the negotiation process provides the most satisfactory solution. Under normal circumstances, a negotiated agreement would have provided a remedy for this situation. However, in the absence of such an agreement from the House, the Speaker is placed in a very difficult position. I am mindful of the process that was unanimously agreed to by all members of this House in the drafting and adoption of our provisional rules. I believe these rules were intended to facilitate the flow of business, improve the opportunities for private members and increase the effectiveness of our procedures.

When interpreting the rules, the Speaker should take into account not only the intent of the rule but the spirit of the rule in finding a common-sense solution. The rules provide that the deadline for consideration is to be November 28, 1996. How the time is to be allocated so that the vote on third reading occurs no later than the normal adjournment hour, with time for royal assent to be given if the bill passes, is something that should be settled by House leaders.

The Speaker is bound by the rules of the House. They provide that bills must come to a vote on third reading by the end of the fall sitting. These provisions were agreed to by the House. In the absence of a direction from the House that this rule should be varied or waived, the Speaker's rule is to give effect to the rules.

In 1987, Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons, when faced with a similar situation, ruled that he was obliged to provide direction to the House. Beauchesne Citation 328, which is based on his ruling, states in part that "the Speaker has some general responsibility for the operation of the House." The citation goes on to quote from the Speaker Fraser ruling. I would like to quote from it now. "The House is . . . facing an impasse which it has been unable to resolve for itself. There comes a time--"

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. This is a very serious and a very important matter, and I would appreciate if all honourable members would give the Speaker the courtesy to continue to put the ruling on the record.

I would like to quote from it now.

"The House is . . . facing an impasse which it has been unable to resolve for itself. There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the Rules of Procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion in the interests of the House and all its Members . . . . "

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Wait until I am finished, please.

Also in that ruling, Speaker Fraser noted that one of the functions of Speaker is to ensure that the House is able to transact its business. Speaker Fraser also said in his ruling that "This is not the first time the House has had to deal with controversial legislation, neither will it be the last. It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided, and the decision will be taken by a majority."

Admittedly, it is unusual for a Speaker to allocate time for debate. That is why there should be an agreement by House leaders as to how the time is to be allocated on report stage and at third reading. In the absence of an agreement, the government could introduce a motion for time allocation. Of course, the government could always use Rule 43 and introduce a motion for closure. In the absence of any government motion, the Speaker would have to rule on the allocation of time so that the deadlines established in the rules can be met.

As Speaker, I feel that it is my duty to apply the rules that the Assembly has adopted and therefore, in the absence of an agreement between the government and the opposition and in order to ensure that all members utilize the remaining time most productively, I am serving notice to all members that, in order to comply with Rule 102, if report stage amendments are not completed at 2:45 p.m. on Wednesday, November 27, the question will be put on the report stage amendment then under debate. Any report stage amendments not yet moved will not be considered after that vote. At 4 p.m. on Wednesday, November 27, the question will be put on the report stage concurrence motion.

Commencing at 2:45 p.m. on Thursday, November 28, the vote(s) will be conducted on those questions necessary to dispose of the third reading of the bill. This timing is designed to allow for royal assent immediately following the vote on third reading.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, in your unprecedented ruling you make reference to agreement between the government and opposition House leader. I want to put on the record that the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) has not had any contact with me of official or unofficial basis since November 7. So what has happened here is that the government chose this route, which is to have you enforce closure on the House rather than dealing with it in the appropriate way.

Madam Speaker: I would remind the honourable member for Thompson this is not a time for debate. If the honourable member disagrees with the ruling, the honourable member has the ability and right to challenge the ruling of the Chair.

* (1430)

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I can assure you that I will be exercising that right, but your ruling makes specific reference to agreement or possible agreement between the opposition and the government House leaders, and I wanted to put that on the record, and also the fact that this ruling makes no reference to Speaker Walding. I sat in the House when Speaker Walding did the appropriate--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is the honourable member for Thompson challenging the ruling of the Chair?

Mr. Ashton: --thing as the Speaker, which was, he did not intervene to stop the bills. Madam Speaker, your ruling is absolutely unacceptable. We challenge your ruling. I challenge your ruling, and I want it put on notice that we will be moving a motion afterwards, no confidence in you as a Speaker of this House.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, 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 Yeas have it.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, in a way I have never done before in 15 years in the House, I want a recorded vote on this absolutely unacceptable, undemocratic decision enforced by you as the Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Kowalski, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 30, Nays 23.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). If I had voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that in accordance with Rule 2(b) the Speaker extend the sessional calendar past the normal sitting dates specified in Rule 2(3)(a) in order that this House remain in session until Bill 67 has been fully debated.

* (1540)

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I was rising on a matter of privilege. I thought the member was seeking--

Madam Speaker: I was not aware why the honourable member was standing, but I must deal with the motion that he has proposed here.

The motion proposed by the honourable member for The Maples is out of order because it is a substantive motion that would require notice.

Mr. Kowalski: On a point of order. So when could this motion be brought forward, using the rules, to extend the sitting of the House in the proper way?

Madam Speaker: The response to the point of order raised by the honourable member for The Maples is by serving notice.