Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege, and this will be followed, as according to our rules, by a motion.

Madam Speaker, I regret having to rise today on this matter of privilege because the events we have seen today I never thought I would see in this Legislature in Manitoba. I have had the opportunity to sit in this House since 1981. I have seen many controversial issues. I have seen governments and Speakers placed in very difficult positions.

I was here in 1983 when the opposition led by the current Premier (Mr. Filmon) rang the bells, rang the bells and rang the bells. What is interesting is at that time Speaker Walding did not intervene to shut off the bells, and there was some controversy at the time. I know there were some who would have said that that would have been the appropriate thing to do, but Speaker Walding did not shut off the bells. In fact, the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, accepted the fact that there was an impasse that could be not be resolved in any way, shape or form other than, in this particular case, going against every rule and tradition of our House and our parliamentary system.

I note, Madam Speaker, that the rules were subsequently changed a number of years later that dealt with that, and that was the appropriate thing to do. You do not invent rules. What you do is you determine rules through a process that has a long tradition in this House of involving all individuals. You do not do that.

I want to indicate, Madam Speaker, that my matter of privilege relates both to the conduct of the government and to your conduct, and I want to indicate that the motion will deal specifically with your role as the presiding officer of this House afterwards. But I want it to be very clear, on the record, and very clear to all Manitobans that what we feel has happened today is that the government has used you as the Speaker of this House to enforce closure on the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. What is particularly cowardly about what the government has done is that they did not even use the motion that is on our rules to bring in closure.

Now we may recall the Premier (Mr. Filmon), I think as recently as the last 24 hours, saying, oh, we are not going to bring in closure on the sale of MTS. This is the same Premier who said, we will sit in December and January, if necessary.

Madam Speaker, under our rules, the session can be extended for as long as it takes to deal with full debate on the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. I ask the question on the record, why the Premier said one thing even a few days ago in terms of this and now has used your office, through the point of order put forward by the government House leader (Mr. Ernst), to enforce closure on this House?

I cannot express how bad the precedent we are establishing here is. I want to stress the background of closure. I did some research, went back to the pipeline debate, 1956, a bitter controversy at that time, Speaker Beaudoin at the time. What is interesting about closure is that in Canada closure is never imposed at the discretion of the Speaker, ever. Unlike the British House of Commons where the Speaker does have that ability, Canadian parliamentary history is very clear: Speakers do not impose closure.

I want to quote from The Office of the Speaker in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, Philip Laundy. I wanted to quote this because this has to be on the record: It is also interesting to note that the Canadian closure procedure, unlike that of Westminister, does not involve the discretion of the Chair. It is moved by a minister, notice of intention to do so having been given at the previous sitting and decided without amendment or debate. It is less draconian in this operation than the British closure since, if carried, debate may be continued on the House before the question until one o'clock. It is undoubtedly fortunate, given the many other pressures on the Speaker, that he was at least spared the responsibility of deciding whether or not the closure motion should be followed.

I continue: As it was, he was embroiled in a series of complex procedural disputes which culminated in the only motion of censure against the Speaker which the Canadian House of Commons has ever known.

Madam Speaker, today you have not only brought in closure, but, unlike even Speaker Beaudoin in the pipeline debate, you did not even require the government to move the motion. You moved closure. You moved it following next Wednesday and next Thursday. You have now put on the Order Paper something that will deny us the opportunity for having many of our amendments even debated or voted upon in this House. That is the Canadian parliamentary tradition, closure by motion.

I want to deal with Manitoba because unlike the Canadian House of Commons, we do not have a tradition of closure whatsoever. [interjection] Well, the members opposite say we have rules. The rules have a closure provision that is in place. The government has the opportunity to use it, but no government has used that.

What I find particularly offensive--

An Honourable Member: You broke the rules.

Mr. Ashton: To the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), I spent many years discussing and negotiating with members opposite and never once--and I include, by the way, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) in this case--never once was it ever indicated that there would be scheduled votes. It was indicated that the closure mechanism was still available; that it was not recommended that governments use it since it was not within the Manitoba tradition.

Why do we have a closure provision in the rules when in fact now the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) did not have the courage to use it himself? He is getting you, Madam Speaker, to impose it.

Let us deal with the provisional rules because I take great offence to some of the statements made by members opposite because I spent a long time working on those rules. There are provisions specifically in these rules to deal with a normal situation and to deal with unusual situations. What could be more unique than the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System by a government that said it would not sell MTS, that has no mandate to sell MTS? This is the most significant financial bill that we have dealt with in this Legislature, not only in decades, but in the history of Manitoba, $1.5 billion of public assets. It should not be resolved in this way.

The rules which the government House leader, when he raised this point of order, neglected to mention, makes specific reference to the fall sittings normally being eight weeks, later than the last day on Thursday. He never once mentioned that there are other ways in which you can have debate continue. It indicates, under our provisional rules, 2(4), and I want to quote the rule, that "while the House is in spring or fall sittings, if a motion to exceed the concluding dates specified in sub-rules (2) and (3) is passed by the House" the House may deviate from the sessional calendar. So not only does the government have the choice of closure, nothing dies on the 28th of November; they can extend the sitting. They have that option available to them as well.

* (1550)

I really, Madam Speaker, question how even the government can accept the ruling he raised previously because, quite frankly, when the ruling specifically indicates that there should be consultation between House leaders, I can indicate that the last conversation between House leaders in regard to the rules was on Thursday evening--which I initiated the phone call. I phoned in regard to the committee hearings, and I want this on the record, because what I was amazed at with the government is that I gave clear reference to the fact that there were difficulties regarding Bill 67, the complexity of the bill; it was still in committee. I indicated the leave provisions. I indicated all of that to the government House leader and to the government. They were fully aware of that. They ended up in the--if this was not so serious, it was almost like a comic opera. We had the committee sitting on Friday, the day after they said the session should be over. The bill was still in committee, and they were moving substantive amendments to the bill, amendments that we said on Thursday night would have to be moved to protect the pensions.

Madam Speaker, what did they think was going to happen on the 7th? What did they think? Did they think they could go to the committee the following day and have it retroactively considered as part of the process? How incompetent could this government be to be in the situation where they gave the amendments on Bill 67 to us on the Wednesday, it was still in the committee on Friday, and they thought somehow everything should have finished on the 7th? But what is most bizarre about their conduct is on the 7th they said, the rules are off, the rules are broken, and they came in the following week and what did they attempt to do?--to shut down the House. They attempted, and what I found most bizarre is they were making this argument we were obstructing the House, by doing what? By requiring normal notice procedures. Nothing more. Nothing less. We were not moving the House adjourned. The government did. They used their majority to shut down the House all last week. That is how committed they were to the rules of this House.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting, with the convenience of the government, because on the Order Paper, it was coincidental, of course, that we have 25 hours of Estimates time that was not considered because of the timetable that was there, time that was not available to the opposition under our rules. The Opposition Day motion, last week we said, we are entitled under the rules to have an Opposition Day on MTS, and do you know what? They did not want that debated in this House. They shut it down rather than debate it. They said the rules were off. Now they said, the rules were on, but do you know what, they said, but the rules are not good enough. We have to do something that has never been done in Canadian history; we have to have the Speaker enforce closure. That is what they have done today. That is unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, let us talk about the Manitoba tradition. We have unique features in Manitoba. We have the committee process. I find it interesting, because government members who did not listen to the public in the committee--the vast majority who are opposed to the sale--said, well, we are unique in Manitoba. We have these committee processes where we have hearings on each and every bill. No courtesy of the government. This is the rules of our House. This is the process we have followed in Manitoba for decades.

What was interesting, Madam Speaker, is that, when they did that, they talk about the unique traditions. One of the other traditions of this House is we have not had closure; governments have not used closure. I have mentioned about the constitutional dispute in 1983. The New Democratic Party government never once introduced closure on that bill and this Conservative government should be ashamed of itself. This government has no legitimacy or credibility for what it moves. I find it shameful.

I have spent many months talking to Manitobans about the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. What I find interesting is I started realizing that the government was finally getting the message when they started engaging in personal attacks and the kind of redbaiting from the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Yes, I was being likened to Fidel Castro because you know what I said, you do not have the right to sell it off and the future government has the right to buy it back. You know what--there are a lot of Conservatives in Manitoba who are saying the same thing. The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), he must have thought he really hit a nerve with me when he called me a socialist. I tell you what, Madam Speaker, I think I got him back at least as good when I suggested that the 78 percent of Manitobans in rural Manitoba might be somewhat surprised if they are called socialists, even though a lot of them are going to vote New Democrat in the next election because of this government.

I find it amazing that the government was running around and the kind of personal insults that we were subjected to based on--they blamed us for violating the agreement. What did they expect would happen on the 7th, that we are going to retroactively have the committee meet on Friday and then have it considered Thursday and the bill would go through? The Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), if she cannot figure out that Friday comes after Thursday, she has a real problem. We do lots of things in this House. I realize this is the only place in Manitoba where we do not see the clock. You know, we call 5:30, 4:30, but you do not call Friday, Thursday retroactively.

I say to the government opposite, you know, this is not just about rules. It is about the basic tenets of democracy in this province. I find it interesting that the government when we suggested putting this issue to a vote of the shareholders of Manitoba--a referendum if you want to call it that--and what their argument was at that time, we were elected to make the tough decisions. They were elected to implement what they promised to the people of Manitoba. They promised not to sell MTS. They should be implementing that. That is what they were elected to do. But what is the most offensive and odious about what the government has done today is the fact they have no mandate to sell MTS. A lot of Manitobans are saying, it is not yours to sell, to the government. They have not had a single public meeting, not one. They will come in this House and members will give big statements, they will attack us personally, they will do whatever they can, but not one of them has had a public meeting on the sale of MTS. You know why--because Manitobans--

An Honourable Member: Coward.

Mr. Ashton: They are cowards, indeed. Manitobans are saying they do not want their telephone system sold. Do you know what I found interesting? The last few weeks I am getting calls from people who are saying, you know, I am not sure whether I am for or against the sale, but one thing I know is I do not agree with the arrogant, authoritarian, dictatorial way this government is forcing through the sale of MTS. Not only was this government not elected to sell off MTS, it was not elected to break every single rule and tradition of this House by getting you, unlike anything in Canadian history, to enforce closure on this House. I warn this government, because we are not dealing just here with the situation. This is not your caucus. I do not even know if you have votes in there, and I know you were not even consulted in the backbenches on whether MTS should be sold off in the first place. They did not trust you. They did not trust you to have a vote on it. They announced it to you, did not even trust their own board to deal with it.

I do not care how you deal with matters internally. It may be all right for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and a few select others to make this decision, but this is the Manitoba Legislature. In this House, Madam Speaker, we have centuries of democratic tradition and tradition that dates back to 1870, and you have no right whatsoever to destroy our democratic process in the Manitoba Legislature. I mean, what does it take for the government to realize that what it is doing is odious, getting the Speaker to bring in closure? I want to stress the basic principles of our parliamentary system, because, you know, Beauchesne's Citation 1, "The principles of Canadian parliamentary law . . ." and I want to stress the first part of the citation because I think it sums up exactly what we are dealing with in this case: "To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority . . . ."

I want to stress another aspect as well, Madam Speaker: ". . . to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse." That is from Sir John Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, pages 200 to 201.

* (1600)

"To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority . . . ." What was interesting about that is the New Democratic Party, the opposition in this House, we may be a minority in this House, but when it comes to the Manitoba Telephone System, what this government is doing is using the tyranny of a minority to oppress the will of the majority of Manitobans who do not want MTS sold off.

I want to focus in on the fact it is odious enough that we have closure, but your role, Madam Speaker, in this particular matter. I want to quote Beauchesne, Citation 167: "The essential ingredient of the speakership is found in the status of the Speaker as a servant of the House." The role of the Speaker in this House is not to be a servant to the government House leader, the Premier or anyone in the Conservative caucus. There are 57 members of the Manitoba Legislature. You are our servant collectively, and by the ruling you brought in today you have no confidence from any member in the New Democratic Party. You are not the servant of this House.

Madam Speaker, I want to quote Beauchesne, Citation 168: "The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons"--which applies to the Manitoba Legislature--"are authority and impartiality." I want to stress some of the other provisions that indicate how important that impartiality is. "In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity."

Madam Speaker, I put that on the record because I hope that you have not violated 168(2) with any official connection with any Conservative function. I hope you have not attended any Conservative Party events or any caucus events, but that is for you and the Conservative Party to explain whether, indeed, that has happened. But you have by your decision today shown a complete lack of impartiality and we will not accept that.

Madam Speaker, I am surprised that you did not look further at the role of the Speaker, because I believe that when you made your ruling earlier today you violated 168(4), which indicates: "Hypothetical queries on procedure cannot be addressed to the Speaker from the floor of the House." Madam Speaker, the government House leader asked you a hypothetical ruling. There was no violation of our rules at that point of time. A point of order is raised at the point in time in which there is a violation of our rules and procedures. You should have rejected the point of order of the government House leader out of hand because it was a hypothetical situation. Instead, you chose to bring in closure.

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the situation we are in today. I cannot believe that this has happened. I could have believed many things from this government. I could have believed--you know, I suppose I must admit that I was not shocked when they broke their election promise on the Manitoba Telephone System, but still I was somewhat surprised. I must admit I was not shocked with some of the incompetence of the government in dealing with Bill 67, getting their amendments to us on Tuesday evening. I must admit I was not surprised, the incompetence of the government of getting amendments brought through on 67 on Friday. How about the incompetence of the government, which only this week passed an amendment that we moved on report stage, a bill that was supposed to be over two weeks ago?

I am not surprised by the incompetence of the government, but I am absolutely shocked the government would see any legitimacy in the process that it has adopted today in ramming through, and that is the only word that can be used, they are going to be ramming through the sale of MTS against the wishes of the people of Manitoba, using you, Madam Speaker, to bring in closure.

Madam Speaker, I want to stress to the government that they do not just have to worry about our concerns here in the Legislature. I want to say to you on the government side, what you have done today destroys any vestige of credibility and legitimacy you have as a government, not just on Bill 67, but for any handling of the public's business. You cannot and will not be trusted by the people of Manitoba to protect our democratic system in this province and handle the public's business. You are incompetent, and you are unethical. I say that to this government--incompetent and unethical.

Madam Speaker, I want to go further, because you do not have to just worry about the Legislature or the people of Manitoba. We also have a legal system in this country. I want to put on notice that we do not accept the legitimacy of any decision made under your ruling next week, not on Wednesday, not on Thursday, not next year, not in three years. I want to put on record to any court of law that considers the legitimacy of these proceedings that the opposition and the people of Manitoba do not accept any sale of MTS conducted in this fashion.

Madam Speaker, I asked the government where they expect us to be going from here. I want to indicate that we are not only moving this motion, but we will never accept your impartiality or authority as Speaker from this day on. I say to the government, if that is the kind of House that they wish to have operate, in which they have used the Speaker and where they have destroyed the credibility of the Speaker, I say to the government, that will affect the functioning of this House from this day on in. I say to the government, why have you done this? You have options. The most reasonable option is the one that would be supported by both opposition parties, to continue the debate for as long as it takes.

Why did the Premier say he wanted to debate this until December and January? What is wrong with debating this? Do you know what I find offensive? The government House leader and the Education minister talked about the waste of money in the Legislature, $10,000 a day. I want to take the Order Paper, and I want the government House leader and the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) to indicate on the record that this is the 85th sitting day, the 85th sitting day of the Manitoba Legislature, which is not even above the average sitting length, and I say, one of the most offensive things I heard from the government was to suggest that we are wasting the public's money by sitting here debating the most important bill in Manitoba in decades.

I say to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), to the Minister of Education, you would not give us the ability to debate our Opposition Day motion on MTS, because you wanted to shut down the House. I found that offensive. To the Minister of Education, I am sure there are many people in the history of the world who did not spend very much money on the democratic legislative process, but this is not Italy of the 1920s or Germany of the 1930s, this is Manitoba in the 1990s. I notice the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) takes some offence. I hope he will read something about history, because I took great offence at his comments yesterday about Fidel Castro. He should tell some of his constituents who want to buy back the Manitoba Telephone System after this government has sold it off, tell them the same thing, because he has offended his own constituents, the vast majority of whom support what we are saying. Members like the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), I feel sorry for that member because he was not even consulted by his own caucus, Madam Speaker. They did not even take it to his caucus, I wonder.

The Premier sits there and smiles and smirks, and I will not read back into the record some of his comments in the period of 1983. I sat here. I heard him talk about democracy. I heard him talk about democracy in this House, and I remember a Speaker that never had to bring in closure at the request of a government, because it was a government that had some integrity, that did not bring in closure and accepted the parliamentary paralysis. Well, they laugh, Madam Speaker.

This government has no integrity. They cannot even bring a closure motion. They have to get the Speaker to do it, Madam Speaker. Well, the Premier laughs. [interjection] Ah, he says the government threatened Walding and would not listen. I guess the government threatened the Speaker, and she did listen.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just want to put on the record--

Madam Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr. Filmon: On a point of order, I would ask that the member withdraw the comment that he just put on the record. It is a total falsehood.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable First Minister, I will take the point under advisement and report back to the House.

Mr. Ashton: Indeed, I hope the Premier will consider his comments because we had a time in this Legislature when we had a Speaker who was not put in this situation today, because, Madam Speaker, I do not blame you for what has happened. I blame the Premier. He is the one who has led us to this situation.

I realize, Madam Speaker, that it is difficult for some members of this House to understand the basis of our system in this House, and I note the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) because, you know, I have had the luxury of being both in government and in opposition. It is easy to sit on the government benches and assume that you can ram things through and complain that the opposition is wasting money by sitting in this Legislature and to think that only you know what is best for Manitoba, and who cares if two-thirds of people are against you or 78 percent.

* (1610)

But the basis of the parliamentary system has always been the fact that the members of this Legislature, of any Parliament anywhere in the Commonwealth, in any democratic body, that we in the opposition have rights as well. We have the right to speak out for our constituents and have full debate in this House. Madam Speaker, history records Speakers who defied authoritarian kings. They lost their heads, Charles II. Even to this day, our ceremonies in Ottawa, in the House of Commons in Britain parallel the fact that the monarch does not go into the House of Commons, going back to that period of time.

Madam Speaker, I would have said the appropriate thing for you to do today would have been to defy in this case an authoritarian Premier and said, no, you were not going to bring in closure. That would have been the appropriate thing to do for you as Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely flabbergasted by this situation today, because how do we have any functioning of this House from this point on in? I am not just talking about acrimony. I have been in this House when there has been a significant degree of acrimony, and I recall the days of 1983, 1984, and it took a lot of time to heal the wounds. There were people who were calling each other names at the time. There were epithets used that were racial in content. There were heated words. I remember opposition members calling Francophone members of this House frogs. That is how intense it was in that point in time. And I was here.

It was not an easy time but the government of that day chose a path not to ram through the particular item in question, and it is interesting, because many arguments can be made for the basic principle of what was being achieved through that motion, but they accepted the parliamentary situation they were faced in, the government of the day, and did not compromise the position of the Speaker. That was one of the key elements in rebuilding any kind of functioning of this House.

That option was available to the government. They could have done many things; they can still do on Bill 67. We brought amendments forward in committee. We started bringing amendments forward in this House that would allow the government to go to a vote of the people of Manitoba. It is interesting, Madam Speaker, because I think we could all probably pass 67. It was subject to one thing, a vote of the people of Manitoba. It is interesting because in 1983 there were votes that were taken--not referendum but plebiscites--and it was indeed an involvement for the public at that time. And I remember the comments of the then-Leader of the Opposition. The government has other options on Bill 67. It had the option of holding public hearings. We moved that prior to proclamation. I would have said that would have been at a bare minimum, appropriate.

I have never talked to one person yet in rural Manitoba who can understand why the government would not hold hearings in rural Manitoba on something that is fundamental to rural Manitoba as the sale of MTS. They had other options as well. They could have discussed and negotiated, if they were interested in doing that, with us to do what? To adjourn the House? We could have adjourned the House, had the public hearings. We could have come back and dealt with it at that point in time. They were not interested in that.

They had one agenda. They wanted this bill passed through on the 7th, and if they did not get it through on the 7th, despite all the circumstances that indicated it could not physically have been passed on the 7th, then what they were going to do is they were going to tear up any sense of co-operation in the House. We have seen that the last two weeks. I mean there has been no discussion from House leaders--not one item of discussion--because the government has decided that they want to dictate to the House how the House should be run.

I say to the government House leader (Mr. Ernst), I do not hold the government House leader responsible for this action. I respect the government House leader; I have worked with the government House leader (Mr. Ernst). I believe he is a man of honour, and I do not necessarily appreciate some of the comments that have been made on the record the past few weeks, but I take it in the spirit that it was given in the heat of the moment. I have a lot of respect for the government House leader. Madam Speaker, I have no respect for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba who is ramming through Bill 67 in this way.

I wish this motion that I am going to be moving in a few minutes could reference the conduct of the Premier because I believe he has 100 percent responsibility on this whole matter. He is the one who did not say the truth to the people of Manitoba in the election. He is the one who broke his campaign promise. He is the one who has no mandate. He is the one who is listening to Bay Street and not Main Street, Manitoba.

But he was not happy enough just destroying a telephone system that has served us well since 1908. He was not happy enough lining the pockets of the Bay Street brokers and his political friends. The Premier was not happy with that. In the process he has to try and destroy our democratic system in Manitoba as well.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader, on a point of order.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have been very patiently, quietly listening to what the member for Thompson has had to say, and he has had to say a lot. Most of it, I do not agree with, but the fact of the matter is he just accused the Premier of lining the pockets of certain people in Toronto and lining the pockets of his friends. That is an imputation of motive, unfounded, and I ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, I would point out that it is a fact that indeed this Premier and this government, through their policies, are benefiting as they have three investment brokers on Bay Street--$300,000, the commissions which are going to be given to those individuals. Members of the board of the Manitoba Telephone System have been getting $147,000 in legal contracts related to Faneuil; Barb Biggar, the former press secretary, has received contracts in regard to advertising; Mike Bessey, a former senior official with the government, received a $400,000 advertising contract--oh, pardon me, a scholarship contract with Faneuil. I could give a list. I mean, Mr. Leipsic with the Autopac--this government has been lining the pockets of its political friends.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House.

* (1620)

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that, and I would say this is not even a dispute over the fact; the facts are clear. That is what is particularly offensive.

At what point does this First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and this government understand what it is doing to this province? I mentioned earlier in Question Period the way it has dealt with the sale of MTS. I mean incompetence is clear. You know, the authoritarian nature of it is clear; the antidemocratic nature of it is clear. They broke their promise, and they are not listening to people. You know they have not even followed business principles of due diligence. It has been like a comic opera to see prospectuses leaked over the front page of the paper, brokers now sending out letters based on that prospectus, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) in committee, and even as recently as one day before, giving out bit by bit information on the sale of MTS. It is absolutely offensive that we in the Manitoba Legislature do not even know the full details of the sale, and we are going to have to vote on it next week.

Madam Speaker, you would not sell your house with the same limited degree of due diligence that this government has followed with a billion-dollar-plus corporation. You would not sell a corner store with the kind of lousy analysis and incomplete information that this government used to bring in a decision that it already knew it wanted to do. I say that it is offensive that it is absolutely clear that the Premier and other individuals in that government, you know that little family compact-plus that they have there, that core little group that they have there. I believe they knew well before the last provincial election they were going to sell off MTS. They knew darn well that what they were going to do was when they got in, they would make up a pretext, bring in the Bay Street brokers, and sell off MTS as soon as they could.

But, Madam Speaker, not only are they destroying an institution that has served us well since 1908, that is supported by Manitobans throughout the province, not only are they doing that, they are bringing in this offensive closure mechanism. I say to the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), who was a former House leader himself and may recall what happened during the Meech Lake process, you know in many ways it was disappointing for those who wanted to see Meech Lake passed. It was a victory for those who did not, but one thing that triumphed on that day was that we had a Speaker who made a decision on a point of order that made history.

Madam Speaker, I say to you that you had a choice, as did the Speaker in 1990. I was here, and I remember the point of order. I remember speaking on the point of order saying at that time, while we are dealing with the Constitution of Canada, how important it was to make sure that every procedure was followed properly, particularly, when it is dealing with the constitutional rights of First Nations. People who have shown so much trust in the systems in this country, the democratic process when, in many cases, that trust has been betrayed by those who were in government--and I do look at the Premier when I make that comment about betrayal of aboriginal people.

But there was a Speaker who had the entire weight of the nation on his shoulders, who had the Conservative and Liberal House leaders urging the rejection of the point of order, which was a legitimate point, question of the notice procedures that were followed, and when we felt we had no option at the time, as we did, to say that we had to make sure that every proper procedure was followed. Who can forget how long the bells rang, those of us who were here, while the Speaker weighed the pressures, the future of the country, of the federal government, the other provinces and of his own colleagues in this Legislature? Madam Speaker, that Speaker said no. That Speaker said, in a very historic way, that we have traditions in this House, that we follow those traditions and procedures, and he rejected out of hand that point of order. It made history, and I will always have respect for the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) for what he did on that day. I think one of the most shameful things was when he was so unfairly treated by this government after the last election. He is one Speaker that will be remembered in history in this province.

Madam Speaker, you had a choice. You could have read Beauchesne. You could have read Philip Laundy. You could have read the House of Commons' Précis of Procedure, Maingot, Bourinot. You could have read Manitoba history. You could have reflected on the actions of Speaker Rocan. You could have reflected on the actions of Speaker Walding. You could have reflected on the pipeline debate. You could have reflected on the fact that in Canada we have never had closure brought in at the discretion of the Speaker. You could have even reflected on the importance of the decision that we are being asked to make now under these so-called procedures that you have established, which will deny us the opportunity to even have a vote on many of our amendments. You could have reflected on the fact that you are going to be requiring the passage of third reading with even less time than closure brings in. Under the motion of closure, debate goes until two in the morning to at least give people one more chance to speak. You did not even, in this set of procedures, give us the same kind of speaking time we would have in closure.

More importantly, you could have just sat back and thought about what this will do to our Legislature and to this province. Regardless, Madam Speaker, of the pressure you were under from the government with this absolutely unprecedented and uncalled for procedure, a procedure they did not even have the courage to put in the form of a motion which would be debated and voted upon, which they ask you to bring in unilaterally, you could have just said, this is wrong, this is not democracy, this is not the way to proceed. You could have said no to the government. I will not speculate on what drove your decision, but I know one thing, in no way can any objective observer feel that this was an impartial decision. You have done something that is unprecedented in Canadian history, and I say that because that is not something that I feel that you will want history to recall you for. You used precedent; you ignored totally Manitoba precedent in terms of Speakers.

The precedent you used in Beauchesne was a motion, the admissibility of a motion. You did not even require the government to bring in a motion. You made the decision for the government. Some people on our side call this cowardly closure. This is worse than closure. This is one of the most offensive episodes in parliamentary history in this country and will forever be remembered in Manitoba for that fact. Do you know what, Madam Speaker? If that is what you wish for your place in history, I will leave that to history to write about it. I am more concerned about the immediate situation we are in, the Manitoba Telephone System, $1.5 billion in assets, the Manitoba Telephone System that provides service to 98 percent of Manitobans, the Manitoba Telephone service that has served us well since 1908, the Manitoba Telephone System that is supported by two-thirds of Manitobans who do not want it sold off by the government.

* (1630)

As of next week, thanks to your ruling and your procedures, as of Friday, the Bay Street brokers, the Wood Gundys, the Richardson Greenshields, they will be selling off our Telephone System. There will be a lot of joy on Bay Street tonight, and I am sure members opposite will be lining up their purchase of shares for next Friday. I am sure that a lot of the Conservative friends of the Premier will be counting their potential profits at our expense. But, you know what, Madam Speaker, I know the seniors I have talked to and the senior from Boissevain; I know farmers I have talked to throughout the province, the senior, the pension recipient from MTS who lives in Steinbach, the First Nations community of Nelson House, all of whom are incredibly frustrated by the sale. I know that people I have talked to in Gillam, in Thompson, in The Pas, in Flin Flon, in Roblin, in Virden, in Minnedosa, in Neepawa, Brandon, Thompson, Selkirk and the people we have talked to in committees like Arborg and Gimli and Teulon and others, in Lac du Bonnet and Beausejour, they will never accept this as a legitimate decision. They will be saying that the government did not have the right to sell off MTS in the first place, and this is not a legitimate decision. You have ensured that by your ruling today.

That is why, Madam Speaker, we challenge the ruling, and we do not accept the 31 members--and I say 31 members of the government caucus, because there are truly 31--ramming through that procedure. We do not accept what the Premier of this province has done to our Legislature and to the office of the Speaker, but since we cannot remove the Premier--at least not until the next election which we are going to do, believe you me--we cannot remove the Premier yet, but we can bring back impartiality to this House. We can bring back a speakership that respects all sides of this House. We can bring back a speakership that respects our rules and traditions passed down from centuries of parliamentary tradition.

Madam Speaker, I will be moving this motion, but I say to you that, even if this motion is put to a vote and is rejected by the government, I would say that you should reflect on your situation because I think the only honourable thing to do, regardless of whether this motion would be passed, is for you to resign. That is why I have followed our rules, this being the only appropriate way of challenging the Speaker--

An Honourable Member: Apologize, Steve.

Mr. Ashton: To the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), I make no apologies for demanding that our Speaker represent 57 members of this Legislature and not just 31. As is appropriate under our rules, I will be moving this motion, and, as you have done, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that we put it to a vote, although I would ask you to think about this matter very carefully because I do not believe you can function with the confidence of this House from this point on.

That is why I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that this House no longer has any confidence in its presiding officer.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, indeed, this is a very serious motion that has been moved by the member for Thompson. I do not believe this is necessarily the first time; there was another opportunity where we debated the confidence of the Speaker. That was a while back, and I talked a lot about the roles of the Speakers back then. I talked about you, in particular. I still believe today that you are no better nor no worse than other Speakers that we have had inside the Chamber.

Having said that, as you could tell by the vote from within the Liberal caucus in which there was a free vote because it was a very important issue, you will find the one thing in which we all agreed upon was a rule in Beauchesne's which I had brought up with my colleagues. It is Citation 33, which reads: "The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and then to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the Constitution Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended, or repealed at the discretion of the House."

We take that particular citation very seriously and is, I believe, ultimately why it is that you have seen a split from within the Liberal caucus. I would like to comment on that particular split. You had members of the caucus that looked at this and said, look, to me--and I do not know if I can use myself as a third party--look, Kevin--or whatever it is you might want to put it as--there was an agreement and that agreement, in the quote from the agreement the memorandum of understanding, states--[interjection]

The deputy government House leader (Mr. Praznik) makes reference to whom it is signed by. It is signed by individuals representing all three political parties, and I treat us as a political party inside this Chamber. It states: Government bills will be introduced, printed and distributed during the spring sitting. 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.

It goes on in terms of the provisional rules which each and every one of us voted in favour of. Each and every one of us wanted these provisional rules adopted with the idea that in future sessions what we would see is more order and a better form of governing both from the government perspective and the opposition perspective.

That is the reason why all of us voted in favour of those provisional rules. Well, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) said it very well. From their interpretation, they believe that we have to live by the rules. One can look in terms of what Beauchesne's has to say about it and how important those standing rules are, those rules which we decided to adopt.

I, on the other hand, would concur fully with my colleagues in terms of the importance of the rules. I also concur fully with what the member for The Maples was suggesting in the motion, even though it was ruled out of order. The rules do allow for the government, if you like, to extend the sitting, and I guess that is how I would say--you know, it is kind of like, back at you. The government, if it so chose, Madam Speaker, could allow full debate on Bill 67 by using that rule in order to ensure that there is full debate on Bill 67. We hope that the member for The Maple's (Mr. Kowalski) suggestion or motion, if you like, will in fact be respected, and the government will take it, at least to allow it, somehow to come to a vote, because normally it has to be a government motion. We will acknowledge that, but the mechanism is there within the provisional rules to see the session extended.

Madam Speaker, the other day I talked about principle and the whole MTS issue, and because the member for Thompson took great time in terms of explaining why it was so important to express the motion of nonconfidence, I do believe that there is some onus of responsibility on me to talk about that particular issue, the one of that principle because it is important. Does the principle merit the breaking of the rules? There is a valid argument given the nature of what the government is doing with MTS, that that is in fact the case. I do not believe that the official opposition was on principle going in the same direction, that they are going today, eight months ago. For that reason I have to look at the rules, and the rules say, the last Thursday of November is the day in which we have to rise, normally.

An Honourable Member: Normally.

Mr. Lamoureux: Normally, as echoed. Actually, let me get the exact wording. It is on page 3 of the provisional rules where it is Clause 3(a) The fall sittings of the House will normally be eight weeks or part thereof in duration and will conclude no later than the last Thursday in November.

And then it allows for that extra rule in which, if you like, and it is (b) while the House is in spring or fall sittings, if a motion to exceed the concluding dates specified in subrules (2) and (3) is passed by the House.

* (1640)

That is what we are hoping the government will take into consideration. We will hold our breath, but we are hoping that the government will take it in. But we acknowledge and we are prepared to recognize that these were provisional rules and there was an agreement in principle that was made, and that agreement was voted on by each and every member of this Chamber. It is a question of integrity. We each and every one of us agreed that these were going to be rules that we were going to live by, and, as my colleague for St. Boniface talked about the importance of Beauchesne's Citation 33, that is the most important privilege of the House, that we have to live by the rules which we set. We cannot change the rules.

Madam Speaker, personally I believe the members for The Maples and St. Boniface put forward a valid honourable argument, then why is it that I voted in the way in which I did? I am somewhat revealing the secrets from our caucus discussion. I hope my caucus colleagues will forgive me for that, but I did do some consulting while the bells were ringing, and you know something, I do believe that not everything was done in order to allow the government to pass this particular bill. The government did have the opportunity to introduce closure. If the government had not been successful in introducing closure or attempted, and it was coming into problems in which here is the rule that says that we are supposed to be out, and they were not prepared to extend the sitting, then there would be a valid argument to be made, that you should have brought in the recommendation that we get out, because that is what the rules in fact say.

Let there be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, in particular the minds of the people from within the media as some might read or some might actually be listening as we are speaking, there should be absolutely no doubt that the principle agreement that I signed on behalf of our party and the agreement that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the government House leader, the intent was that each and every government piece of legislation would, in fact, pass. [interjection]

That was the intent, and a member says, no. I will not state the member who said no, but that was the intent. I was there. I was involved from Day One on that process. Every piece of legislation was to pass. It is a question, Madam Speaker, of whether or not we are going to stand on the integrity of being an MLA.

So, Madam Speaker, I do believe that in essence you did not use the best judgment when you said that at 2:45 or whatever time the question has to be put, primarily because I believe the government could have done more to ensure that the bill would have passed. In listening to the member for Thompson and what the member for Thompson had to say, there is one aspect to the whole matter of privilege that really interested me. It is a bit of a contradiction, and I think it is a very important point.

I would ask, Madam Speaker, that members of the Chamber listen to this particular point, and that was that the member for Thompson said--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster is speaking to a very serious matter.

Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Thompson, in his remarks--and one can read Hansard. I am hoping I am not misinterpreting it, but as I was listening to him, he said, I do not blame you, Madam Speaker. I blame--and he was making reference to the Premier. [interjection] No, it was very clear. I can read Hansard, and I would retract it if, in fact, I read it wrong. I believe what the opposition House leader was arguing is, I do not blame you; I blame the government.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne, on a point of order.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Yes, Madam Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was just over on this side of the Legislative Assembly and threatened the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) in the following words: Come outside and say that to my face, and I will kick your lights out, Timmy.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne does not have a point of order. I did not hear the comments. The honourable First Minister was not in front of the microphone or had been recognized to speak. The honourable member for Inkster was--my understanding is that the honourable member for Osborne raised a point of order about comments made by the Premier. [interjection] Order, please.

The honourable member for Osborne, to quickly complete her comments on the point of order.

Ms. McGifford: I would like to complete my comments, Madam Speaker. The other side of the House made it impossible. I wanted to say that the member for Crescentwood is hard of hearing and fortunately did not hear the Premier's threats of violence and thuggery, but I did. I am insulted, and I think he should retract his words. This is a government that prides itself on its antiviolence programs, and that is violent and ugly. I am ashamed of this Premier.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the point of order, what the Premier just--and I have heard many comments from the Premier over the years, many of which have been unparliamentary, but this is absolutely unprecedented. I mean, this is a comment more worthy of a schoolyard bully than the Premier of this province, and it is up to you, Madam Speaker, not only to be impartial, to ensure order in this House. I would suggest you start with your Premier and ask him to withdraw those absolutely unacceptable, threatening comments. This is not a schoolyard. He is not the bully of this province. He is the Premier and should set an example, and he should withdraw those comments he just made.

* (1650)

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Mr. Ernst: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, clearly the member for Osborne suggested that when the Premier was on the other side of the House, certain words may or may not have been understood correctly. The fact of the matter is, though, that the speaker was not in front of the microphone, was not recognized to speak and whatever comments--there have been lots of comments and lots of gestures occurring in this Chamber this afternoon that do not do any respect for the office of an MLA, so whether the comments were made or were not made or whether they were understood or misunderstood, they are irrelevant matters, not on the record.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, on the same point of order.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, but I think I will wait until you are listening.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, on the same point of order.

Mr. Sale: For the record, I do have a significant hearing loss. Many members opposite know that because I have stated it in committee. Many members of my colleagues here also are aware of that. I did not hear the Premier's actual words, and I had to ask my seat mate what all the commotion was about. Since I did not hear the words, I did not rise in my own stead. I appreciate the fact that other members did. I did not ask them to do so. The Premier has made absolutely unacceptable threats. He talks about the importance of violence and nonviolence as a way of life, and he has threatened a member with physical violence, although I did not personally hear the words. I absolutely reject that kind of conduct. He is a small, little schoolyard bully.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Family Services, on the same point of order.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would just like to indicate that I do know that emotions are running very high in this House. You know, we have a situation and a circumstance where many things have been said across the floor in the heat of anger, and I understand the frustration on the part of the opposition because in reality they had some sense that they were government up until just the last few hours.

The reality is that I sat in opposition too, and I understand how frustrating it might be, but I think some of the comments that have been put on the record by the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) and some of the, can I say, catcalls from the other side of the House have been completely unacceptable. Madam Speaker, I would hope that all members would respect other members of this Legislature. I have to say that I have been very upset with some of the comments that have been made, but I can understand the frustration of the opposition.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I believe I have heard enough on the point of order.

The honourable Minister of Labour, on the same point of order. I will entertain only what has not been already put on the record relative to the same point of order.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I listened very carefully to the remarks from the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson), and I, too, have been sitting here and listening to the other side, not just listening to the other side but, in fact, four or five members from the other side have been raising Nazi salutes in this House.

I find that despicable that they are sitting in Her Majesty's Legislature raising Nazi salutes and, to do this, I can only understand the frustration that can go on here. The same people who talk about democracy, the same people who talk about The Remembrance Day Act, they are the ones raising Nazi salutes. I think that should also be borne in mind, what has been happening here today.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I thank all honourable members for the advice given the Chair. I will take the matter under advisement in order to peruse Hansard and report back to the Chamber if necessary.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, in summation, I guess I will attempt to try to keep it as brief as possible. From what I understand in the ruling, in the consulting that I have done, I understand that in the House of Commons there was one other opportunity where a Speaker went beyond the standing order. That was, in fact, Speaker Fraser, and Speaker Fraser did that primarily because of frustrations with what was happening with the petitions. I think what has happened here is, once again, the Speaker has gone beyond the standing orders.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a point of order.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, on a new point of order, although it relates to the other point of order as well. It is not just a matter of catcalls back and forth. We are talking about the Premier coming on this side and not only saying the things--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon, regrettably, it is not a new point of order. It relates specifically--I have indicated that the point of order has been taken under advisement.