MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
(continued)
Resignation of Speaker
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on the matter of privilege, the honourable member for Crescentwood who has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, last night the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) seemed transfixed with the idea that the memorandum of agreement somehow supersedes the formal rules adopted by a unanimous vote of all members of this House. The reason for this, of course, is that if the rules as ratified by the House did indeed provide one or more mechanisms to resolve the issue of the MTS legislation, then they would have to admit what is obvious to all Manitobans, namely that you the Speaker broke not only the most precious rules protecting the rights and privileges of all members, but that you did not have to do so.
The member for Riel even appealed to us to think about what a judge would do if faced with the question the former House leader posed to you as Speaker. Well, first, of course, the judge would look to the law, the rules of the House. I would be the first to admit that I did not absorb all of those new rules quickly when I first saw them, and perhaps there are some members opposite, indeed I suspect there are, who have not had the time or perhaps even the inclination to read carefully the new rules and to see whether the words of their Premier and the words of their House leader are indeed true or whether they are just taking those words on faith hoping that the ministers are speaking truth. I appeal to them to spend a little more time and review those provisional rules. They are in fact very comprehensive. They provide for most exigencies, and we should commend the people who drafted them, including members of all parties in the House.
So what do they say? Well, Madam Speaker, first the rules clearly, very clearly, anticipate that circumstances might require either earlier or later sittings than were normally agreed upon, and the word "normally" is in three sections, Rules 2.(1), 2.(2) and 102.(1). They all use "normally."
I want to quote Rule 102 because I think it is particularly important to have in front of us. Rule 102 reads: "Notwithstanding Rule 73," which is about the passage of budget, "and subject to sub-rules (2) and (3), all government Bills will normally receive a vote on Third Reading not later than the last day of the fall sitting . . ."
Again, notice the word "normally" which is of course the subject of the exceptions which are set out very clearly in subrule (4), and the rules do anticipate exceptions. Subrule (4) is even called "Extraordinary Circumstances." Well, if there was ever a bill that was extraordinary, it was the MTS bill. It provides a very clear mechanism to extend the sitting of the House not with any great effort on the part of the government. All they had to do was get up and move a motion with two days notice to say that the sittings of the House will be extended. They could say the date to which they would be extended or they could not even say a date, they just could say they would be continued.
So there was no problem in extending the sittings of the House, and by so doing--and I call the member for Riel's (Mr. Newman) attention to this in particular--the last sitting day would not be the last day of November, it would be whatever day was specified in the motion that I am sure would have passed because you had a majority government to pass such a motion.
So the first and main defence offered by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the member for Riel falls like a house of cards. Where there is unfinished business or where circumstances require, sittings could be extended by a simple motion of the House as the government wished, and as the Premier took the trouble, bouncing on his feet to say out in the hallways of this Legislature: We will go till Christmas; we will go till New Year's. Well, you could have done so. All you had to do was move a motion, and it would have happened very easily.
Well, why then might there be a change between what the memorandum of agreement does say and the final rules as passed unanimously by every member of this House? The reason, of course, is that after the memorandum was initiated, there was a passage of time, and parties sat down with counsel and with legislative staff and they drafted the new rules. In the process of drafting, they realized that there were things that needed to be added than were in the memorandum of understanding. And each time there were changes every one of those rules, as the member of Riel (Mr. Newman) knows, came back to caucus and were approved in caucus as changes, and all of the new rules were approved before they were brought here before the House. So the issue of normally, the issue of extending the session, the issue of early sessions, earlier than contemplated by the rules, normally, was all understood and all approved by all members of this House. So that is, I think, a very important correction to the words that the Premier and the member from Riel and the government House leader put on the record yesterday.
But it is only the first of many defences to fall. What would happen if, as indeed, I think, did take place, the public and the opposition were so opposed to a bill, such as the MTS bill, that the government was facing what it considered an intolerable delay in passing its legislation, no matter how odious that legislation was to Manitobans, well, Madam Speaker, if you had read, you would have found that the rules were very clear here as well. Every single parliamentary device available to the government under the old rules continues under the new provisional rules. Every single one. Rule 75.(4) provides for extended sittings, Monday to Saturday, morning, noon and night and through the night if you want. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for even a determined opposition to sustain debate through night after night after night and into the next morning? If you were serious about getting this bill passed, you could have extended sittings.
* (1420)
If you wanted simply to push amendments through more quickly, you could have used the motion called "the previous question." You could have forced consideration and adoption of motions, of amendments, of whatever you wished to have pushed by simply moving the previous question, Rule 69.(1) and (2).
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
But the granddaddy of all tools for getting business concluded is closure, Rule 43, and Rule 43 is exactly the same in the provisional rules as it is in our traditional rules. Not a thing is changed in that rule. All that Rule 43 needed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was that some minister with sufficient courage and sufficient honesty would rise and give notice of the intent to use closure the following day, and then in the following day all he had to do or she had to do was rise and say, debate will not be adjourned on this particular motion and the motion would have then passed sometime before or after 2 a.m. that sitting day, in the morning of that sitting day.
So every single one of the defences put forward by the member for Riel (Mr. Newman), the government House leader (Mr. McCrae), the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), who was the deputy House leader in the old government, and all the other government speakers, all of those defences fall. You had the tools to get your legislation passed. You did not have the courage of your convictions to use them, so you hid under the skirts of a supine Speaker.
What really happened? What really happened was that the Premier, facing growing and overwhelmingly negative public response, growing uneasiness in his own ranks--and those on the opposite side know about the growing uneasiness there was, particularly among the rural members of your caucus. What did he do? He told his House leader to get this bill passed without using closure, and the die was cast and a weak and partisan Speaker fell into the trap. What really happened in those chaotic days when the MTS workers' pension issues were not resolved? What happened when amendments were not put forward in time and were not completed even by the 7th of November, had to be done the day after the government first claimed was the last day, on the 8th? What happened when prospectuses were leaked and brokers with visions of Mercedes Benz and BMWs and Jaguars were dancing in their Christmas heads? What happened was the Premier was told by Bay Street to get this bill passed; get the $35 million in commissions flowing; get the big fees to those glitzy marketers who sat very impatiently in the Trizec Building for two and a half weeks while the bill was debated here, running up the tab for this government. They said, get on with it, Mr. Premier, because Christmas is coming and our goose is not getting fat quick enough, and if we do not get this bill out and passed and the stocks on the market, it is going to be Christmas. We will not be able to sell them. So that is what happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
What happened was that orders were given and orders were taken and democracy was suspended because the courage was lacking to use the readily available and well-known procedures in the rules. Bay Street had its way in this Legislative Assembly. We were all treated like a board of impatient directors representing wealthy stockholders, not like elected members representing all Manitobans. The sad consequences, the very sad consequences, are before us in a soiled Speaker and silenced members, and these consequences will remain in this House as long as this Speaker remains. Madam, for the sake of this House, go, and let us have an elected Speaker now.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I rise today with, I suppose, a little bit of frustration and also a bit of disgust with some of the language and attitude and comments that have taken place on the debate on this resolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I think is a resolution, in my mind, that should never have been introduced into this House yesterday at the start of a new session by an honourable member and the Leader of the official opposition who, I honestly believe, was coerced by dissident members of his caucus into introducing that, perhaps in order to maintain his leadership and some control over there, because we do know that at the end of last session there was absolutely no control and no leadership in the New Democratic caucus. I stand here today in order to support our Speaker and the good job that she has done on behalf of Manitobans and on behalf of all members, all honourable members of this Legislature.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to also include the fact that some of the comments that were made yesterday by members of the official opposition certainly did not portray the fact that we are all honourable members, because the language and the tone and the words that they used were not speaking to an honourable member. No matter what the official opposition has done, I still do consider all of them honourable members of this Legislature, as do I include our Speaker as an honourable member and all members of this Legislative Assembly.
But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to go back to November 28, 1996, and there were some very sad and some very happy times, and I am not sure today whether I would call a birthday a happy time, but nonetheless it was my birthday back on November 28. It was also a morning where we buried a very dear friend of mine. I was at the funeral of a very dear friend and as we went through the morning and the ceremonies and the activity, it put my mind into perspective and looked at what the really important things were in this world and in these lives that we lead. He was a very honourable man, and what I came back to, as a result of the bells ringing, was a mob mentality in this Legislature. I do not know who the leader of the gang was or who incited that hatred among members of the opposition. I know that it was not the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) because I know from experience and from having known him for many years that he would not be the gang leader, the mob leader. But there must have been at least one person over there and maybe it was more than one or two of my honourable friends who were a part of feeding the frenzy that I saw and the activity that I saw take place that afternoon of November 28.
I want to refer to my honourable friend the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) whom I believe to be a very caring and considerate person, and I have had lots of activity with him. When I saw the way he behaved--and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know he was not the leader of the gang or the leader of the mob because I know him better than that, but the state of frenzy that he was in when I looked into his eyes, I almost believed he was demon possessed as he tore across the floor of the Legislature literally chasing the Speaker of the Assembly with his face all red in a fit of rage. I thought to myself, this is not the member for Burrows that I know. Obviously, somebody has placed that frenzy, that curse, that fear in my honourable friend, and I honestly felt very sorry for the member for Burrows. I was really glad to see that when he ran into a barricade at the door, he sort of shook his head and looked like he came out of the trance, and I honestly believe that he was embarrassed for his actions and his activities on that day.
What I saw in this House was something that I have never seen before not only in this Legislature but outside of this Legislature in public life. I have never before seen a group of adults act in such a disrespectful and such an uncontrolled fashion as I saw in this Legislature. It reminded me somewhat of the schoolyard bully who has no self-confidence, no self-esteem, no idea on what to do and would like to pick on because they do not have the ability to generate for themselves any creative ideas, would like to pick on someone specific, and they did pick on a specific person, a woman who sits in the chair that you are sitting in right now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
* (1430)
I have no problem whatsoever in accepting criticism and constructive criticism from the opposition. That is the role in the Legislature. I know from having sat in opposition for two years that it is an extremely frustrating position in which to sit because no matter what you do you know that ultimately the government of the day is going to make the final decisions on what laws are passed and what policy will be implemented. I only had to sit there for two years, and I was extremely frustrated. I know how my honourable friends in opposition must be feeling after nine years of that kind of frustration, but I honestly believe that they thought they were government and that ultimately, because they opposed a piece of legislation, they would have the decision-making power to kill that legislation. That is not reality. It has never been reality in the parliamentary process, and the people of Manitoba did not elect the radicals across the way that behaved in that unruly manner last fall to government. They are in the opposition, and it is time that they came to understand in opposition that, yes, they can oppose, they can constructively criticize, and I do not mind accepting responsibility for my actions or criticism for our policy direction or legislation that we bring into this Legislature. That is fair ball and that is fair process.
But what I saw here last November, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the continuation of that into the beginning of this session is something that I would never want to hold any pride in, in saying that I am an elected member of the Legislature because I do not believe that I have ever seen a collective group of individuals act in such an unbecoming way. It is not an example that I would like to set for my children, and, God knows, I think a lot of us in this House have children. We want to be positive role models. We want to instill in them a sense of right and wrong, and to see grown adults act in a manner in a moblike way like we saw across the way last November was very unbecoming. I will not and would never condone that kind of activity, and I would have been extremely embarrassed if my children had seen the way grown adults presented themselves last November 28.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have seen an official opposition party who has brought forward a plan of action against gangs, and I wonder if one of the points in their plan would be to invite gang members into the Legislature last November 28 to show what positive role models they would be in trying to eliminate gang activity. It was a shameful sight, and I really would love to be able to disassociate myself from any of the activity that was seen last November. [interjection]
I have to say that I listened very intently to members of the opposition as they spoke yesterday, and I certainly would appreciate that kind of consideration from those members opposite as I speak because there were many things. I know there are many things I am saying today that my honourable friends may not agree with or may not like, as there were many things said yesterday that I may not have agreed with or I may not have liked, but I sat and listened anyway. The honourable member for Wellington has to be one of the worst because I have to indicate that the catcalls and the language that she used in addressing the Speaker in November of last year were shameful. They are not words that are even in my vocabulary, and she should be ashamed.
Point of Order
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington, on a point of order.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take personal umbrage at what the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) is stating about my comments in late November. I do not object to her being upset about them, but I do not think she has any business saying anything about what any member of this side of the House has said in November or yesterday when she said about the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) that she thought he was psychotic.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mrs. Mitchelson: I understand my honourable friend's frustration again, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I indicate again that some of the language that she used towards the Speaker back in November was language that I would never speak or language that would not be in my vocabulary. She knows and she has to live--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable minister, but at this time I am having difficulty hearing. Maybe it is my age that is creeping up on me, but could I ask honourable members who want to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge? We will all have an opportunity to put our voices to the record. The honourable minister has the floor at this time.
The honourable minister, to carry on.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I do want to speak to the rules that were put in place last year. I have sat in this Legislature now for 11 years. Last year was the first time ever that we had the kind of spirit of co-operation that I thought could lead to reasonable debate, differences of opinion, opposition questions and criticism, but, ultimately, we would have a better set of rules that would govern this legislative process in a very significant and major way that would be positive for the people of Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, under those rules there was a sense of closure imposed on both the government and the opposition. Government was under closure to bring in all of its legislative agenda, unprecedented, before the end of the spring session in exchange for a closure date to end the session, and that was an agreement that all members of this Legislature agreed to, and it was the first time ever that I saw the kind of co-operation that I saw throughout the last session up until the end.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we all know that the MTS legislation was introduced according to those rules before the end of the spring session. In fact, if we had had the old rules in place and were not operating under the new rules, our government House leader could have called that MTS bill every day in the fall, and the opposition would have either had to stand it which would admit that they did not want to debate it, or at least there would be a record on whether they stalled the bill and did not debate it, but we do not have that record because there was a co-operative approach between the government House leader and the opposition House leader, and our government House leader only called that bill when it was agreed to by the opposition.
* (1440)
If we had been operating under the old rules last session, we could have denied leave to let that bill stand, and the opposition would have had to debate it or vote on it, but in the spirit of co-operation that was there throughout all of the session, we did not impose or did not place expectations on members of the opposition to vote on that bill because we believed their word when they said we would end the session on November 7. We can never again trust their word, and that is an unfortunate situation in this Legislature because I have lost all faith and all trust in members of the opposition to live up to their word.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, my word is my bond, and I will indicate to you very clearly that we have a Speaker in this Legislature who has done a very reasonable job of providing support and criticism when necessary to all members of this Legislature, including members on this side of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, just before I close, I want to comment on a few things that were said by my honourable friend the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) yesterday and put on the record how disappointed I am, quite frankly, in his comment. I want to quote from Hansard from yesterday, and this is the member for Dauphin speaking: "I also want to say to the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) is that what you did is you denied seniors in my town of Dauphin their ability through me as their representative to ask questions about cuts to Pharmacare, an issue that they are very concerned about."
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we sat here for how many months in this Legislature, and never once did the member for Dauphin get up and ask a question on Pharmacare. He had the whole session and that whole opportunity, and then in the eleventh hour on November 28, he says he was going to stand up and defend his constituents on Pharmacare. That is balderdash, and he should feel ashamed for those comments in sending the message out to his constituents that he cared about their concerns.
Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot believe the next comments he made. It obviously was something that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) felt very important to put on the record. Then he goes on to say that "if the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) had allowed me the opportunity back in November, I could have maybe brought a constituent's concern forward who came into my office last week to complain to me." How on earth could he have asked a question in November on her behalf if she just came to him last week and then complained and raised the issue with him? He really has not done a service to his constituents by not telling the truth in this Legislature in his comments yesterday.
I want to close by saying I am disappointed that the rules that were put in place last year did not work out, because I think it is to the detriment of all Manitobans and to all members of this Legislative Assembly. I do also want to indicate quite clearly that I have lost my faith and my trust in members of the official opposition. I do want to indicate that I know that the next few sessions--two or three or however many it may be that lead up to the next election--are probably not going to be the most pleasant. I think we have missed a great opportunity--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the minister to retract the one statement she made about the truth? That would have been unparliamentary. [interjection] I thank the honourable minister to return to debate.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and absolutely I will withdraw any comments that might have been derogatory to any honourable friend in this Legislature.
I want to indicate that I think it is a sad day for Manitobans and that, in fact, we probably will never have another opportunity as long as we have the same players in the House to develop the landmark kind of co-operation that there could have been as a result of the rules and the co-operation that was displayed before November of last year.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to add a few words to the debate on this matter of privilege and accompanying motion. I take this matter as a very serious matter. It is not like many other debates that we have where we take different sides of an issue, argue about an idea, argue about a policy or debate a policy. No, we are talking about an individual's performance. This is very personal in nature, this motion, so I take it very seriously. I remember that some day all of us will no longer be MLAs. We will be people out on the street. Maybe we will all be sharing the same ward in the same nursing home. Who knows? We are going to have to face each other, and I want to be able to face every member of this House. Maybe every member of this House may not agree with me, but I will be able to look them straight in the eye and have no shame for anything that I have done in this Chamber--and including the Speaker.
In the past, we in our caucus and myself have supported the Speaker on a number of occasions. The reason for that quite often is that the Speaker has made sure that we as a third party in this Chamber have received our rights as individual members on a number of occasions. We have appreciated that, and we have supported her on more than one occasion. Even in caucus at times I have supported the Speaker and had to argue quite strenuously for that position. But what did the Speaker do on that final day? I am not talking about the ruling that was brought down because I have already spoken on that and the way the session was brought down, but I have a deep concern at the failure of the Speaker to recognize members of this Chamber who sit on this side of the House.
Once again, as usual, I go back to my police background, and I watched the Speaker very closely. I watched the Speaker's body language. I watched her eye contact, and I saw the Speaker's shoulders and body turn to face the government House leader all during the process. I watched the Speaker's eyes fixed to the government House leader's eyes, and I do not think they were looks of love. I think that there was nonverbal communication between the Speaker and the government House leader to the point where members of the opposition, including my colleague from the constituency of Inkster and other members of the opposition, were not recognized, and that troubles me greatly. So to vote against this motion would be condoning those actions, and I cannot condone the Speaker ignoring the individual rights of individual members in this Chamber.
But the punishment given here for this person and the position of Speaker for making a mistake is like the capital punishment resignation. It is extreme and it falls short in being constructive, because what does this motion really accomplish by having the Speaker resign and having another Speaker appointed by the Premier? What does that accomplish? Possibly it could be someone who would be very partisan. We have heard a number of member statements from the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), and we know what a strong party member he is. Maybe he will be the next Speaker then, and what will we have accomplished? So really does this motion accomplish anything? I feel a little bit more comfortable about voting for this motion the fact that we are not naive enough to believe that this motion is going to pass. It does send a message to the Speaker that her actions on that day--at least by me--were not appreciated in not recognizing members on this side of the House.
As I said, this is a matter that I take very seriously, and we must have good order in this House because there is important business coming forward. We are looking towards one of the worst floods that this province will ever see. There are many issues that are coming forward that the people of Manitoba expect this Chamber to conduct the business of government. So the Speaker, whoever the Speaker is, needs the co-operation of this Chamber, needs the co-operation of all members. As I said, I separate the person from the position. Regardless of how you feel about the person or the mistakes they made, you have to respect the position of Speaker because other than that we are nothing more than anarchists, nothing more than a rabble. That is what makes us a parliamentary system is the rule of the Speaker. So the Speaker needs to receive a mandate from the other members of this Chamber.
* (1450)
So I am going to be presenting an amendment to the motion, and the amendment will allow for there to be an elected Speaker and will allow the present Speaker to vacate her position, to possibly receive a mandate from the members of this Chamber that, yes, maybe some of us will recognize that there was a mistake made, but as my colleague from Inkster said, we do not blame her as much as pressures put on to her by others. So can she be forgiven and carry on as Speaker so that we could conduct the business of this Chamber? So whether or not my amendment is in order, whether or not the vote is taken, we will continue to recognize the position of Speaker as a position that is due respect and is necessary to carry on the business of this Chamber with decorum.
I therefore move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux),
THAT the motion be amended by striking out the words "be removed from" and substituting the word "vacate"; and by adding to it after "immediately" the following words "and, that this House move immediately to the election of a new Speaker by secret ballot, following the current Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia regarding the election of a Speaker."
Motion presented.
Mr. Kowalski: Is it in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion is in order.
An Honourable Member: Now he speaks to the motion, to the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has spoken to the motion
and to the amendment.
Mr. Kowalski: I have not spoken to the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: You did mention the amendment within your previous debate.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I speak on the amendment or on the main motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment. The honourable member for Broadway speaking to the amendment at this time, but I am sure he will be referring to the main motion at the same time.
Mr. Santos: The amendment from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) changed to the word "vacate," substituting the word instead of "removed from." The only difference is that it allows the Speaker to remove herself voluntarily from the office rather than be removed by the House.
Also the amendment said that this House immediately proceed to the election of the Speaker by secret ballot. I recognize that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) wanted to make the situation a little bit more palatable for the Speaker so that the Speaker can save face. The member for The Maples I suppose would like to forgive the Speaker, although in conscience he said that he cannot allow this to happen. That is why he spoke on the main motion. I agree with the member for The Maples that all of us will not always be MLAs because we simply occupy certain offices institutionalized in our system as members of the Legislative Assembly.
Let me digress a little bit how this office emerged. In the nature of things, all human beings live in any social group or society or organization, large or small, and by human necessity, if we are to carry out our human affairs, we have to interact with one another. That human interaction in the course of time gets repeated again and again until there is a pattern in the system of human interaction and that pattern becomes recognizable, and we now label the pattern of human interaction as a social role that we play in society. In the course of time each of the social roles will evolve its own set of normative rules of behaviour. Such normative rules shape the social role more solidly than before until it becomes institutionalized in the ways and social structure of any social system. That is what we call the institutionalization of the structure of society. It is one of this institutionalization of social roles and human interactions that society had evolved, in old England, what we call the parliamentary system.
According to the great darling of the Conservative ideology, Edmund Burke, this structuralization of society is something like a mystery. It is the organic theory of the evolution of the social order. Let me quote from Edmund Burke. He said the state ought . . . to be looked upon with . . . reverence . . . It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in all perfection . . . between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born . . . Each contract is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible with the invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and moral natures, each in their appointed place.
* (1500)
In other words, Edmund Burke is saying that our social ordering in our human society is a product of historical tradition of the collection of past knowledge and past wisdom that evolved so mysteriously until we reach the present stage of our social order. It is in this context that we find ourselves occupying certain social roles and formal positions in the structure of governance of a political society. Each role relates to other roles, and some roles are higher than other roles because of the hierarchial nature of the organizational setup, and our behaviour is shaped by the role that we occupy. If we happen to be in the government benches, we will be behaving in a manner quite different than when we were occupying the opposition benches because these are different kinds of roles. The nature of the arrangement of these institutionalized offices is that it is an adversarial system. We are supposed to debate every issue on the basis of perception, on the basis of values, on the basis of our understanding in quite an opposite adversarial way, not unlike the court system. In fact most of the institutions of modern society are set up that way in an adversarial and competitive way rather than the better system, I would say, in a co-operative way which we neglected. I do not know how it happened that way, but there is a philosopher, Reinhold Niebuhr, who said--
An Honourable Member: A theologian.
Mr. Santos: A theologian, even, according to the member for Burrows--that men, and I would add women, are born as moral beings and yet when they are born into society, the society itself is an immoral structuring of the system. In other words, some of us, although good by nature, become corrupted by the system in which we happen to be occupying, and that is the danger of occupying a position or role or office with power and privileges attached to it. We are so corruptible as human nature endowed us with that sometimes we become drunk with power and forget that every position that we hold is just temporary. It is simply a matter of public trust of stewardship, temporarily for the time being, so that we can carry out the decision of a system that inures to the benefit of the society in which we are apart.
The office of the Speaker, by the nature of things, has evolved with a tradition of impartiality. That tradition is the basis of the legitimacy of the authority of the Speaker. Without impartiality, no human being has any right to sit in the chair which had been evolved, as I have said, historically throughout the ages by the collective wisdom of the past according to the darling of conservative philosopher, Edmund Burke. It should not be taken lightly because the source of the authority is the collective wisdom of all of history in the past, connecting the living with the dead according to Edmund Burke. Why should anyone have any right to breach that kind of set of expectations unless, of course, it is perceived to be of immediate benefit to some interest, imagined or real, other than the interests of the entire society?
That is why some of us, when we occupy positions of authority or positions of power and positions of influence, sometimes we forget, and we forget what we are there for, and we become politicians in the unsavoury terminology that the public understood rather than through a statesperson acting in the best interest of all. The difference is that while a politician would like to distort the facts, a statesperson will present and face the facts as they are. A politician thinks of the next election, but a statesperson thinks of the welfare of the next generation. The politician look to the success of his political party, but a statesperson looks for the success of his country. The politician oftentimes not knowing where to go is satisfied with just drifting along rather than provide the steer and the guidance that leadership needed to be implemented for the proper direction of society. While a politician pursues some form of limited or constricted self-interest or group interest of his own, a statesperson pursues the interests of everyone, forgetting sometimes his own narrow interests.
The choice is in our hands. Which one shall we believe? How shall history judge us? It all depends on our choice. We are endowed by nature with a choice when we are born. We were born free according to Jean Jacques Rousseau, but because we are in society we are chained everywhere by all the rules that we find ourselves in. All I am saying is that it is to our benefit that we should behave ourselves according to the rule that is implanted in our nature and be recognizant of the fact that we are acting for the benefit and interests of everyone, not only of ourselves, not only of our group, but of everyone in society. That is the high calling in which we are called in our role as MLA in this Chamber. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to add a few comments on the motion before us and the amendment, indicate to you and to the House that neither the motion nor the amendment is deserving of support and will not receive any from me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, honourable members in this Chamber, both sides of this Chamber from time to time do acknowledge my status as the dean of the House as having been the longest serving member in the House, and I accept that acknowledgment with due humility. I take it as a matter of privilege. However, my tenure of service does not make me a rules expert, and I have never presented myself in this Chamber as a rules expert. The fact that I was privileged to be a House leader for my party for a short period of time also did not make me a rules expert, but over those past 30, going on to 31 years that I have watched the actions of this Chamber, it has made me at least a relatively knowledgeable observer, if you like, of how we have conducted ourselves in this Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to simply cite the very simple premise based on personal experience that I had working under the provisional rules and one that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) would be well aware of and can attest to the accuracy of what I am going to put on the record.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous effort that my former House leader, other members, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the member from the Liberal Party, that worked together for five years to bring to this Chamber--the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)--a set of provisional rules that, I remind you and everybody, were accepted without a dissenting vote, without a dissenting vote by all 57 members in this Chamber.
* (1510)
It was not the government of the day using its majority to impose these provisional rules on everybody. We all accepted the labour of five years on behalf of some of our members on all sides of the House to try something a little different, to try to conduct our affairs in a different way.
I can appreciate that all of us are well aware of the tradition that we do not talk about what goes on in our individual caucuses, but I am going to do that anyway because I do not always play by the rules. I know and it was alluded to that the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer), the member for Thompson in the discussions with our House leaders, would say, gee, that is going to be a tough sell in my caucus. I will never get that approved. I will never get that sold in my caucus. I can tell you that when the member for Emerson or the member of the former House leader brought proposals as these discussions progressed the same thing occurred in our caucus. I for one took objection to some of the provisions that were being put into those new provisional rules.
The particular one that I want to cite is the unprecedented restriction that prevented me as a minister from introducing legislation in this House unless I got the permission from the opposition. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is unheard of. There is no parliament in the country, nobody in the parliamentary system works that way. I said that to my House leader when he said, well, this is a provision that the opposition is insisting on, that we can only introduce legislation in the spring session, that we would not introduce any legislation at all in the fall session unless we had the permission of the opposition.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, having been minister of different portfolios and different administrations, that is a very serious restriction. I take a different oath as an executive councillor than do all of us as MLAs. I take an oath that I will do my very best for the agricultural industry that I happen to represent in Executive Council. I have to make a judgment call from time to time whether or not a specific demand out there requires me to bring legislation into this Chamber. But I was committing myself under these new rules that I could not do that unless I had the permission of my opposition members opposite.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, precisely that happened to me last year in working under the provisional rules. The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) will be well aware that late in the day in August after the spring session had adjourned and I had under the new provisional rules no opportunity for introducing new legislation, the 1,200-odd dairy farmers came to me and said they needed a relatively minor amendment to The Natural Products and Marketing Act that was extremely important to the 1,200 dairy farmers of Manitoba. It meant upwards to close to $2 million of pooling money that would come to the dairy farmers.
You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I played by the rules. I did not even introduce that to my caucus. I said the only way that can be dealt with under the new provisional rules is if my opposition agrees to it. I referred the dairy farmers' representatives to meet with my Agriculture critic, the member for Swan River, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), likewise with the members of the Liberal Party. They did that. Then the members of the opposition informed my House leader that there is an important little piece of agricultural legislation that needs to be passed. My House leader asked me, Harry, you never told me that you had another act to pass; I would not even approve that.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
Well, under those circumstances, that legislation was passed. The dairy farmers got what they were looking for, and, Madam Speaker, it was a learning experience for me as well. There is nothing wrong with that. If it was worthwhile legislation, if it was legislation that won the approval of all members of this House, we are masters of this House, we passed that legislation, and the dairy farmers appreciated that.
Madam Speaker, just a little sidebar on that. Although I am the Minister of Agriculture, I am also a politician. I would also like to think that from time to time when I acknowledge and do something for a group of citizens, in this case it is dairy farmers, I would like to take a fair measure of the credit for seeing the need for it and introducing it and doing it. I was robbed of that by our new rules. The dairy farmers know full well that it took the co-operation of the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), it took the co-operation of all opposition members in this House for me to be able to pass that, and, again, there is nothing wrong with that. It was sound, it was good legislation, beneficial to the parties that were seeking it. Although my ego suffered a little bit because I could not stand up in front of the 1,200 dairy farmers and say, I got you this legislation--as we politicians sometimes like to do--but I had to share that reward. I did not mind doing that with honourable members opposite.
I cite this only because, Madam Speaker, that was in parliamentary tradition a tremendous giving up on the part of government, the right to introduce legislation. It assured members opposite, because I have spent 14 years in opposition, that it would not occur what all too often occurred, that governments would in the closing days of a session introduce important and controversial legislation that needed time. That is what you accomplished as opposition to the drafting or the formulation of our provisional rules.
Now, what did the opposition give up? The opposition gave up an equally unprecedented measure in my opinion. It is unheard of, quite frankly, that an opposition will agree under the British parliamentary system to ensure that all matters that the government brought before their Legislative Assembly will be dealt with on a prescribed and fixed date. That was a very big giving up on the part of any opposition, and I think the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) acknowledged that that was going to be a hard sell in his caucus, but, Madam Speaker, they did agree to it. We all agreed to it. We brought the provisional rules into this Chamber and, as I said earlier, approved unanimously without a dissenting voice, without a dissenting voice.
So what is at issue here is that the government played and abided by the rules. The opposition chose not to, and it is unfair--well, I better not because that would date me too far, and I have to be careful about my two colleagues here sitting in front of me. I was going to say it is unchivalrous to lay that at your feet, Madam Speaker, in the manner in which they are when you were doing what all Speakers have been bound to do, to live up to the rules of any Legislative Assembly, any parliament that from time to time honours them with their position of trust and stewardship, that you conduct the affairs of this Chamber according to the rules as we determine them from time to time, as we amend them from time to time, as we change them from time to time, and that is all you did.
So, Madam Speaker, I want to assure you of my continued confidence in your stewardship of this House, and I will be voting against both the main motion and the amendment.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendment which would allow the Speaker to resign and follow her resignation immediately by the election of a Speaker, an election to be by secret ballot.
I certainly support this amendment. In fact, it almost mirrors the suggestion made yesterday by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who urged you, Madam Speaker, to do the honourable thing and resign your position with the full knowledge that you did not enjoy support from this side of the House.
As far as the Speaker being elected, my side of the House has been demanding for some time that we have an elected Speaker. We would like to follow the five provinces and the federal Parliament which have an elected Speaker, so we do urge the Speaker to resign. We urge her to resign as soon as possible and to resign so that the process outlined by the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) in his amendment could take place. We also think it is important to recognize that the current Speaker's position is untenable, and therefore she should not be a candidate for Speaker when the Speaker is elected.
* (1520)
As I rise today, Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness and with a great deal of anger, but most of all it is with a great deal of anxiety as I remember November 28, 1996, and wonder when that usurpation of democratic principles and the democratic rights of the members of this Legislature could come about again.
We have heard from both sides of the House on this matter. I just wanted to make some response to some of the comments. I know that my colleagues have reminded me of the sense of humiliation and the sense of impotence I felt when the Speaker turned off my microphone, turned off the microphones of all my colleagues and failed to even look at this side of the House.
On the other side, the member for Riel (Mr. Newman), I would like to suggest to the member for Riel and assure him that the contentious issues in this House are not about etiquette or about manners. I distinguish one from the other, although I am not sure that he did. I want to assure the member for Riel that the workings of this House should not be viewed as a game, that the debates and the questions and the issues discussed in this House are not a game. It is not a sport. That whole metaphor is inappropriate at the very least and, in fact, insulting to some.
I would like to assure the member for Riel, as the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) did yesterday, that this House is not about the expeditious passage of legislation. We are not a corporate board. I think the member for Riel sees us as a cross between Conrad Black and Emily Post, and it is not a role that I or members of this side of the House aspire to.
I want to assure the member for Riel that the issues at stake in this House are issues about democratic proceedings and particularly about the usurpation of democratic rights. Last night we heard from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the Province of Manitoba, certainly a Premier in high dudgeon and by his own admission in bad temper. The Premier of this House talked about rebellious, young Turks and the rebellious, young Turks elected in the last election, and I for one, Madam Speaker, do not know whether to be insulted or complimented since I apparently must be one of those rebellious, young Turks, having been elected in the last election. I suppose 50 might be young on that side of the House, but I do not think it is here.
But it is a jaunty epithet and I would not mind wearing it if it were not for the fact that the Premier also indicated that in this garden of New Democrats who would otherwise be supportive of the Premier, the workings of this House and all Tory decisions, who would otherwise be supportive if it were not for a certain couple of snakes. Of course, the Premier's analysis is totally wrong, and I think I prefer the rebellious, young Turks, Madam Speaker, except the rebellious, young Turks were not those elected in the last election. Indeed, every member of this side of the House is a rebellious, young Turk, and our rebellion is against the usurpation of democratic proceedings in this House and against the creation of the underclass that the other side of the House seems to be practising and the creation of more and more poor families in the province of Manitoba.
So yes, we are rebellious, but we are united in our rebellion, and we see our enemy very clearly across the Legislature.
The government House leader (Mr. McCrae) also spoke yesterday. He spoke about MTS. The member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) spoke yesterday, too. He first conflated catatonia with hysteria and by what I suppose one