Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The House will come to order.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that:

"WHEREAS on November 21, 1996 Speaker Dacquay made a ruling that essentially imposed closure on debate on Bill 67; and

"WHEREAS in her ruling, Speaker Dacquay said, '(I)t is unusual for a speaker to allocate time for debate.'; and

"WHEREAS Speaker Dacquay made this ruling despite a number of options that were open to the Government; and

"WHEREAS Speaker Fraser, whose 1987 decision was quoted by Speaker Dacquay in her ruling, indicated that each case must be judged on its own merit and his decision should not necessarily be viewed as a precedent; and

"WHEREAS the ruling made by Speaker Dacquay was an unprecedented violation of the Rules of Procedure, in that it anticipated a problem which had not yet arisen and declared an 'impasse' where none existed, and was the cause of further rules violations because, to implement her ruling, the Speaker had to seize control of the timetable of the House, even to the point of ignoring matters of privilege raised by Members of the Opposition.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strike Speaker Dacquay's ruling of November 21, 1996 as a precedent for further rulings in this Assembly."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Prior to putting the honourable member's motion before the House, I inadvertently missed a number of items on the Order Paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At this time, it is debate on second readings on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) (The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) and the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe). Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Bill 202, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille, standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

Motion presented.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am sure that members opposite, including government members, will very much want to see this matter come to a vote. I know that they are quite willing to support this particular resolution, and I look forward to their comments in this regard, since it was this government's role and their encouragement to Speaker Dacquay in the ruling to which we are referencing here today.

That was a black day in the history of the province of Manitoba. I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was not a proud moment in the history of this Legislature and in my short time here. I had to say that, when I came to this place, I may have been mistaken, but it was my impression that when we came here that, yes, the Speaker was chosen by members of the government of the day, being that they had the majority of members in this House, but that the Speaker would act in a fair and essentially an impartial manner, and would follow the established rules and procedures of this House. That failing every option available, then the Speaker would take the decision under advisement and make a ruling.

But from the actions that occurred by Speaker Dacquay, as we have referenced in our resolution here today, when she made her ruling on November 21, 1996, she effectively threw the rule book out the window. She did not utilize the options that were available. Speaker Dacquay could have gone back to the government House leader at that time and said that, no, I am not going to impose the will of government on this Legislative Assembly; each member of this House has an equal opportunity to be heard.

One of the things that I have raised in this House before was the ruling that Speaker Dacquay made effectively took away my ability to represent my constituents' wishes, something I very much regret. I have said over and over again in this House--and I know members opposite, some of them here with us today, do not want to talk about the level of pay and compensation which they received. I have said quite publicly that I am well compensated for the job that I do here, and I am honoured and proud to represent my constituents. Other members of this House may not feel that they are adequately compensated by coming to this place, but I feel that I am adequately compensated. Yet, when I came to this Legislature on November 21, 1996, and I wanted to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill 67, the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System, I was speaking on behalf of my constituents and the people that had come to these committee hearings on Bill 67. I wanted that opportunity to be heard, as is my right as a member of this Legislative Assembly. What Speaker Dacquay did by her ruling on that particular day is stripped me of my rights to represent my constituents.

* (1710)

Earlier that year I had surveyed my constituents; from every single home I had received a survey in my community, and 99.9 percent of the surveys that were returned to me--and I brought them to this legislative Chamber and showed them to members here, quite a high stack of them--99.9 percent of those people that responded said they did not want their Manitoba Telephone System sold. They wanted me to represent that interest in this Legislative Assembly, and on November 21, 1996, when Speaker Dacquay turned to the government House leader and refused to acknowledge members on this side of the Legislative Assembly, she stripped me of that right to represent my constituents. That is a black day. That is a day I will never forget for as long as I live. I think that the resolution that we have before us today wants to make sure that will never occur again in this province in this Legislative Assembly. We want to ensure that through this resolution the members of the Assembly have the right to represent their constituents' viewpoints. By taking away that right and by only looking--and this is something I will never forget as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Speaker turned to the government House leader without recognizing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) on points of privilege, on points of order or on the ability to speak on third reading. What you have effectively done is prevented them as well from representing the official opposition and their constituents as well.

So what we are asking the Speaker and this Legislative Assembly to do through this resolution is that the ruling that was made on November 21, 1996, by Speaker Dacquay not be a precedent in the future.

We know that there have been other rulings that we have disagreed with, the ruling that the Speaker made with respect to the utilization or the use of the word "racist" policies and the phrases that are used here to describe actions that would take away the ability of members of this Legislative Assembly to describe things that are occurring, both inside the Assembly and outside of this building, I think that also is a black day for this Legislative Assembly. So what we have here is decision upon decision that is being made that affect my ability and the ability of all of us in this Chamber to represent our constituents' viewpoints. Whether it be on the issue of racist policies or things involving racism in this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it is important that we take the necessary steps to correct each of those areas where those decisions that have been made limit or hamper or reduce or eliminate my ability and our abilities to represent our constituency.

When the Speaker made her ruling, she used Beauchesne Citation 328, that the Speaker has some general responsibility for the operation of the House. Yes, indeed, she does have some responsibility as you do, Sir, for the activities of this House in the Speaker's absence. The intent of that particular clause and Citation 328 is not to promote the involvement of the Speaker to favour one side or the other but to make sure that where the House had considered all options and that the government House leaders had talked about solutions to whatever impasse might be in place, that there would have been opportunities for that work to be done, but the Speaker chose not to look and pursue those options.

She could have said to the government House leader and to the Premier, listen, you are causing the Speaker's office some embarrassment here by putting the office in that particular position of having to make the decision on how this Legislature proceeds when it should be the will of the members of the Assembly themselves, but the Speaker did not choose to do that. The government House leaders, and I know the government has a new House leader now, but his colleague and the former government House leader could have made that decision to work out some way that this House could have proceeded.

They had the option of going to speedup. That was one of the options you had, to go to speedup, where we would have more than one Question Period a day and have the debate continue, both on matters of privilege and points of order and the ability to debate third reading, but the Speaker did not choose that option. She did not go back to the government and say, you had the ability to use speedup in the process to allow this particular piece of legislation that the government so desperately wanted to pass, so that they would have the ability for those brokers to proceed with the sale of the shares of MTS, because it is my understanding that quite a considerable amount of money was made on the sale by those brokers, judging by the articles that were in the newspaper, where they were going out buying new Mercedes Benz and new Jaguars as a result of the sale of those shares. Obviously, there was a lot of--I should not say a lot. Obviously, there were some people who were made very rich as a result of the sale of those shares.

The Speaker also referenced a ruling that was made by Speaker Fraser of the Parliament of Canada, what was clearly a different situation in the House of Commons than what we had experienced here. In fact, the House of Commons had been facing an impasse which the Parliament was unable to resolve. At that point, the Speaker of the Parliament had to step in and take the steps after exhausting, from my understanding, exhausting the options that were available. In those cases, where all options were exhausted, then the Speaker would have to take the steps to make sure that the business of the House would proceed.

One can understand situations like that, but that did not occur in this situation. All options had not been exhausted. The government chose not to pursue the one that has been used by various governments of both--they are all political stripes in this Legislative Assembly, and that is the process of speedup, where we have the opportunity to have more than one Question Period a day and therefore the ability to have more debating time for all members wishing to speak on Bill 67.

The way the Speaker imposed closure in her November 21 ruling was far more draconian than the way in which the rules require the government to impose the closure. According to Rule 43(1)(2) debate can continue--my research has shown--until some 2 a.m. of the day after closure is invoked and the final debate has started. So there is a process there that would allow for some extensive debate to occur for a considerable period of time, and the government chose not to go down that road. The Speaker effectively ended debate by the procedures that she used in ignoring members of the opposition duly elected by their constituents to come to this place to represent their interests.

It is my point that the government should bear, in large part, responsibility for the decision of the Speaker. I do not know for certain, but it left me with the distinct impression that this was a particularly orchestrated event on the part of the government involving the Speaker, because had that not been the case, one would have expected that the Speaker, through the normal procedures that we see happening in this House on a regular basis, would glance around the House to determine whether or not individual members wish to be heard and to have the opportunity to stand and speak. The Speaker on that particular occasion chose to look directly at the government House leader and ignored members on this side of the Legislative Assembly. That is wrong.

That is one of the reasons why we are continuing to have difficulties in this Legislative Assembly, because the government chose to use the Speaker to impose the will of the government, the will of the majority, the tyranny of the majority over the minority. The government has cast a large shadow over the office of the Speaker. I think it is damaging, it can be potentially damaging in the long term for the Speaker until this particular action is corrected. By bringing forward this resolution here today, we are hoping to say that--should this resolution be passed here today, which I hope it will--that ruling of Speaker Dacquay not be a precedent and that this government has to bear some responsibility for the extreme measure that was taken by the Speaker, because it left me with no other conclusion to draw other than it was an orchestrated event.

* (1720)

It was not only against the rules for the Speaker to end the debate, it is also unfair to every Manitoban who values the democratic process. I would take it that would be everyone in the province of Manitoba. People have to know and have a right to know that the provincial government did not want to answer any more criticism about the sale of MTS. The only way they could end that criticism about that sale, since they know by far the vast majority of Manitobans were opposed to the sale of MTS--and I am talking like in the range of 68 to 70 percent were opposed that the government--the only way they could silence the opposition both internal to this Legislative Assembly and in the public realm was to end the debate. They utilized the office of Speaker to end that debate which I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was a black day for the province of Manitoba.

I hope all honourable members that are wishing to comment on this resolution will lend their support to this resolution, that Speaker Dacquay's ruling on November 21, 1996, not be a precedent, and that we can get on with the business of this Legislative Assembly in a fair and democratic way.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Parliament is, indeed, a marvellous creation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Parliament has survived in one form or another for many hundreds of years now. I guess it has done so because over the years, it has been able to respond to the exigencies of the time. It has been able to respond and be a place for persons representing constituents, partisans, and others to have their time, their say, to be the place where public issues are debated, voted on, and progress happens.

Along the road, there is no doubt that parties of one kind or another, or individuals, become aggrieved, and there are various procedures in our rules and our practices. I was reading Beauchesne Citations 13 and 14. As I read those two citations, I was struck by how extremely marvellous Parliament really is, because Beauchesne is one of the authorities, we call them "authorities" as if what Beauchesne says is the definitive answer to everything, even though Erskine May, John Bourinot, Joseph Maingot, or somebody else, might have something else to say--on this particular day it might be Beauchesne who is the authority. On another day, depending on the argument someone wants to be making, maybe it is Joseph Maingot, or maybe it is one of the others.

To make my point I would like to read for honourable members Citations 13 and 14 as follows: Citation 13 of Beauchesne's 6th Edition says this: "The Speakers' rulings, whether given in public or in private, constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, Members, and officers are guided. Such precedents are collected and in course of time may be formulated as principles or rules of practice. It is largely by this method that the modern practice of the House of Commons has been developed."

Now, that is all very interesting and fits very nicely in with the arguments being made today, I suggest, by the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). But let us go on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and read Citation 14 which says: "The interpretation of both the written rules and tradition is in the hands of the occupants of the Chair . . ." Some of these lines bear repeating. The interpretation of both the written rules and tradition is in the hands of the occupants of the Chair and their findings forming a fundamental part of procedure.

It goes on, Mr. Deputy Speaker: " Some problems attach to these rulings. When the Standing Orders change, for example, rulings based on the old rules must obviously become obsolete. More important, many rulings must be made with little opportunity for reflection or consultation. When possible the Speaker may defer a decision to give time for research and full consideration. Time, however, is not always available and unsatisfactory rulings may result. Finally, it must be noted that rarely are two points of order precisely the same. While previous rulings may be useful guidelines, they may well lack the precision and certainty which might be desired."

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I read all that to you to make the point that in my humble opinion as a parliamentarian what I just read could say almost anything. If you read those two citations you will be sufficiently confused, I suggest, that you are not sure what it all means, but that somehow it has become, depending on the argument given at a particular time, certain citations in Beauchesne have had very, very heavy authority indeed.

Now I have obviously a lot of respect for Arthur Beauchesne and his writings. I am formerly a Hansard reporter from the House of Commons, and John Bourinot, I understand, who wrote so well was a former senator, I believe a former Senate Speaker in the House of Commons. Sir John Thompson, one of the most brilliant Canadians, I am told, history tells us that Sir John Thompson, formerly the Prime Minister of our country from Nova Scotia, was a Hansard reporter from Nova Scotia. So you never know where a person might come from or where they might be headed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Another brilliant person said this, and what I am trying to get at is that people can make of things what they decide to interpret from them. Somebody said things are more like they are today than they have ever been before in history. Now, think about that, and think about how profound that statement really is. I think it was Dwight Eisenhower, somebody of that particular generation, said that, and it has been quoted many times since. Another person said the future ain't like it used to be. Go figure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, go figure.

To be quite serious with the point being raised by the honourable member, I think with all due respect there is a redundancy that attaches to this resolution in the light of some of the things that Beauchesne said, as I just finished reading out, in Citation 14. The honourable members have also made much of the whole issue about the racism ruling. Whether you like the ruling or do not like the ruling, it was an opinion given by a Speaker in a Legislature at a given point in time, and the weight to be attached to that ruling will depend on the circumstances of some future point of order or question of privilege raised. Now, if I am wrong about that, I am quite willing to be spoken to by someone who knows more about parliamentary matters than I do. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact is, Legislatures over the years in all of the centuries since they began have managed to conduct the affairs of state under whatever occupant of the Chair, under whoever the King happened to be, whoever the people elected to those august bodies were. Yet here we are in 1997, we still have a respect for the democratic principles inherent in the whole concept of democracy. Members on all sides of this House, I think, are all extremely proud to be able to be members of this place, to do the work of the people they represent, to work in a democratic system, and to show respect.

In fact, I have to take issue with something said by the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). He said there is trouble in this place. Well, I am the government House leader, Mr. Speaker, and I have been working with people like the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and others around here. I would like to speak very positively about all of those people.

I think that we have all tried very hard to put some of the things that bother us to some extent to one side, to take up another day, or whatever. But there is work to be done for the people of this province, and members around here from all parties understand that and respect that and want to do what they should be doing, i.e., their duty, and not get bogged down in the kind of skirmishes that can happen from time to time.

* (1730)

I hope colleagues who speak after me will spend a little time on the distinction to be made between a simple ruling made by a presiding officer and a ruling backed up by a vote of the House which makes it into a House order. I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on that because I did that last time these matters came up. Honourable members, unfortunately, have tended to concentrate on an interpretation provided by the presiding officer of this House, but they skip over the fact that it became an order of this House. It was not simply one person's opinion. It became the democratic will of this Legislature that certain things happen at certain times on a certain day.

Now, we know that the outcome was something with which honourable members opposite disagree. We know that. We could have discussed the Manitoba Telephone System issue for another 6, 8, 10, 12 months or years, and there would not have been a change of heart on either side. [interjection] The honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is right when he says that is what Parliament is for. Maybe one of my colleagues will go into the history of the MTS bill and how that all came about and the significant period of time spent on that particular bill. That is appropriate. I think that worked the way it was supposed to. I know the ultimate decision was not to the liking of honourable members opposite, and I respect that. I have seen things not go my way in my time, believe me.

So I understand about that, but legislative paralysis and debate are two different things. Debate is an appropriate thing; paralysing the affairs of state is another thing, and this House decided that it would put an end to the paralysis. It was not the presiding officer that made that decision, because if that was all it was there would have been no vote, the decision would have been made, and honourable members opposite may, all they like, disagree with the decision made by the presiding officer. But, no, Mr. Speaker, that decision was a decision of this Legislature, and that is a very important distinction.

So the redundancy about this resolution that I am talking about will not erase what actually happened that day. That is not going to happen because that is part of the history of Manitoba, but it does not, I suggest to you, change the rules for this and every other Legislature around the world because of something that happened on one particular day in one particular Legislature. That is why I started my comments by saying Parliament is a marvellous institution.

I do not think this is going to happen, but if history should judge that honourable members in the New Democratic Party are right in their allegations, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is not going to make much difference. It will not be an important turning point for the way we operate our Legislatures. My colleagues, no doubt, who talk about provisional rules and how everybody was in agreement, there was a gap in those rules and somehow we had to find our way through that particular problem. That is what happened. We all know exactly what happened, and there are some honourable members who remain aggrieved. I am aggrieved, or was aggrieved. I was upset and unhappy, and I had feelings of anger and all of those things. The fact is, contrary to what the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) says, there is re-emerging in this place an understanding that there is work to be done and that the people of Manitoba are looking to us to act like adult persons and do the work of the people of Manitoba, and that essentially is being done.

Maybe for honourable members in this place, whenever there is a tragedy, there is also some blessing hidden in there somewhere. You know the great flood of 1997 in Manitoba demonstrated to me in so many ways, and I know to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to me as House leader in this Legislature, the floods can bring about an atmosphere of co-operation and finding accommodation and getting the job done. I mean, it would have been so easy on a few occasions, I am sure, and maybe you know about this, too, just to shut this place down. But there is the business of the people of Manitoba to be done, and with that understanding in mind, people rolled up their sleeves around here, found ways to co-operate, found ways to make the right kinds of accommodations and fair ways to do it to get our work done. For that I thank my opposite numbers in both the political parties here, and I respectfully disagree with the honourable member for Transcona when he says that we cannot work together. We can and we do. We have demonstrated that.

If it were not for the redundancy, I can certainly feel sympathy for what the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is feeling, but a simple reading of Beauchesne demonstrates very clearly there is no such thing as a simple reading of Beauchesne because it says all kinds of things and has all kinds of different applications and so do all the other authorities. That is my contribution today.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and this important resolution by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). I believe that what happened last November was Speaker's closure. We also called it coward's closure because the government did not have the fortitude to bring in closure themselves, and they co-opted the Speaker and got her to do their dirty work for them.

Now, this was nicely summed up in an article published in the Times and other community newspapers by Donald Benham, a former legislative reporter and is titled, "Who's pulling the strings?" It is so interesting that I would like to read it into the record because I think it sums up what happened here quite nicely.

It begins this way: "The Ventriloquist puts the Dummy, dressed in black robe and tri-cornered hat, on his knees, and slips his hand under her robe.

"Ventriloquist: You know, Louise, a funny thing happened to me on the way to the theatre.

"Dummy: What, Gary?

"Ventriloquist: A man asked me for a loonie.

"Dummy: What did you tell him?

"Ventriloquist: I told him to buy MTS shares and soon he'd be rich.

"Dummy: What did he say?

"Ventriloquist: He said, 'I asked for a loonie and I got one.'

"Audience laughs.

"Ventriloquist: But seriously, folks, can you believe those New Democrats?

"Audience groans.

"Ventriloquist: Debating is such a waste of time. Why bother?

"Dummy: Yeah. Debating is such a waste of time. Why bother?

"Ventriloquist: Why don't they do like us Tories and just not have anyone say anything about all those bills and stuff?

"Dummy: Us Tories. We've got to stick together.

"Ventriloquist: We used to debate. We tied up the House for weeks during the French language debate. Remember that?

"Dummy: No, I didn't have my head screwed on yet.

"Ventriloquist: And you still don't. But we love you that way.

"Audience laughs and applauds.

"Ventriloquist: A lot of stuff at the Legislature gets in the way of passing bills.

"Dummy: Like what?

"Ventriloquist: Like question period. Who wants to answer questions when there are so many Crown corporations still left to give away?

"Dummy: Who needs it?

"Ventriloquist: And presenting petitions. Who cares what some guy on the street thinks?

"Dummy: Gone.

"Ventriloquist: And points of privilege. Who wants to hear some MLA whine that he's losing his democratic rights? Like I care.

"Dummy: Pathetic. Get them out of my face.

"Ventriloquist: In fact, seeing as we know every bill is going to pass anyway, why bother having the Legislature meet at all?

"Dummy: Whatever you say, Gary.

"The audience falls strangely silent."

So we know what a former legislative reporter thinks of what happened in late November last year, and we certainly have lots of commentary by the print media and other media about what happened here.

I believe that when the Speaker made her now infamous ruling that, first of all, it was not the proper role of the Speaker to do that. The government had numerous options which they could have used, options that they had at their disposal and which those members on the government side who have cared to study the rules know that are and were available. For example, the government could have denied leave to let bills stand. I remember when Mr. Manness, the former member for Morris, was the government House leader. He was very fair. He was honest. But when it was required of him he could be tough. I remember him saying to our members, if you do not start speaking on bills, we are going to deny leave, and he gave us a week's notice, which was very fair. I am quite sure that if we had not started speaking on bills he would have denied leave and we would have been forced to speak on them.

* (1740)

Now, certainly the government House leader last year, the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), could have done the same thing. When he realized that we were not putting up very many speakers on Bill 67, to use an example, he could have denied leave, and we would have been forced to put up 23 speakers in a row if we wanted to talk on that bill and delay it from going to committee. The government chose not to do that. The government could have had the committee hearing public presentations on Bill 67 sit more often. In fact, I understand that the government could have had two or three committees sitting to hear public presentations on Bill 67.

I understand that the government was prepared to do that on Meech Lake, that when hundreds of people or maybe it was thousands of people registered to present on Meech Lake that the government was prepared to have numerous committees sitting to hear public presentations. The government chose not to do that. Then they wondered why they could not get their bill out of committee. It was partly their responsibility to get it out of committee and their responsibility to schedule the committee hearings.

Then they could have extended the hours. We have that in our rules. The government chose not to do that. We could have been forced to sit in the forenoon from 10 a.m. to 12, in the afternoon from 1:30 to six, and commencing the evening from eight until such time as the House may decide to adjourn, which means that we could have sat all night. In fact, I believe we could have sat, according to the rules, Monday to Saturday inclusive, and even if we brought in numerous amendments to, say, Bill 67, that would have put a tremendous amount of pressure on people on this side to speak around the clock, six days a week. I think it would have been just a matter of time before we ran out of speakers and the bill would have passed, but the government chose not to use extended sittings.

The government could have used closure, and they chose not to. Now, closure is not used very often. I do not know what the precedents are in Manitoba, but since I have been here the government has never used closure, but they certainly could have used closure. Instead, they asked the Speaker to make a ruling and used Speaker's closure or, as we have called it, coward's closure.

So what did the government do instead? Instead, they anticipated a problem which had not yet arisen and declared an impasse where none existed and asked the Speaker to bail them out, to solve their problem. Now, there was another option that the government had that they did not exercise as well, and that was to negotiate an agreement with House leaders. On the last day that all the bills were being debated here, I was the acting House leader, and I still have the notes. Maybe someday I will read the notes into the record that the government House leader gave me. We normally do not do that kind of thing, but they have a certain history to them now and would be of interest to all members.

But what I remember promising the government House leader is that we would pass all bills, and I was the one that sent notes to my colleagues and sometimes used these note pads. I went over to one of my colleagues with a note saying, sit down, because we had a speakers' list and we were telling people when to pass bills and when they should finish speaking. Now, normally we would not talk about caucus strategy like this in a public forum when it is going to be printed in Hansard, but it was a very historic debate. So I think it is interesting to know what the inner workings of a caucus are.

We kept our promise. We said we would pass all bills that were in the Chamber, and we did, except Bill 67, which was not in the Chamber. It was in committee, and the government was still moving amendments, important amendments, having to do with the pension plan for MTS employees. So that was not our problem. We agreed to pass all the bills. We could not pass Bill 67, it was still in the committee.

So we believe that the government had numerous options, which they did not exercise, and the problem should never have been put to the Speaker to decide, and because they did, we raised numerous concerns about the impartiality of the Speaker. We have reintroduced a bill to have an elected Speaker, and we think that an elected Speaker would not have felt the kind of pressure from the government that the Speaker felt. We believe an elected Speaker would be much more impartial; in fact, it is quite possible that an elected Speaker would be from the government side, simply because the government has a majority, although, you never know. With a secret ballot, the government could not put the Whip on, so they could not determine the outcome of who the Speaker is.

According to Beauchesne, and I quote: "The essential ingredient of the speakership is found in the status of the Speaker as a servant of the House." The chief characteristic of the Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. We follow the rules and the precedence of the House of Commons; and just as the Speaker of the House of Commons is to be impartial, the Speaker in the Manitoba Legislature should be impartial. Phillip Landry, in a very good book called "The Office of the Speaker," on page 7 says, and I quote: The Speaker is about sectional interests and immune from party influences. He serves only the House of Commons, regardless of which faction might be temporarily in control of it. Each individual member receives and is entitled to expect the same consideration from him, but his overriding duty is to the House collectively. From the moment of his appointment, he withdraws completely from political activity and ceases to belong to any political party. Within the sphere of his own authority, the rights of minorities are therefore secure in his protection. So I would remind honourable members that the Speaker has an obligation and a duty to protect the rights of minorities, to respect the rights of all members, to act in the best interests of all members collectively, and that does not happen when the Speaker takes the side of the government and a government House leader and makes a ruling when the Speaker should have said it is not proper for me to rule in this case, the government is going to have to work it out, or the House leaders are going to have to work it out. It is inappropriate for me to make a ruling. Of course, we have made a great deal of comment on the fact that we raised Matters of Privilege and the Speaker did not recognize it, and that is another reason why we felt the Speaker was not being impartial.

Erskine May, in Parliamentary Practice, page 181, says, and I quote: Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker, but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized.

I think we have an aphorism in the English language that this reminds me of, and that is, not only must justice by done, but justice must be seen to be done. Probably one of few quotes about, or aphorisms about the justice system that laypeople are familiar with. I am sure lots of lawyers are familiar with that expression including the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe). What we need in the Manitoba Legislature is not only the impartiality of the Speaker, but the public must see and perceive and feel that the Speaker is impartial. If you read the letters to the editor, or if you have been reading letters to the editor of the Free Press since last November, you will see that many members of the public agree with us that the Speaker was not impartial and that we need an elected Speaker so that we have an impartial Speaker.

I have been sending out surveys to my constituents the last couple of months, and one of the questions is should the Manitoba Legislature have an elected Speaker? I have probably got a couple of hundred replies back, and only one person has said, no, we do not need an elected Speaker. I look forward to getting all of those surveys and questionnaires back and tabulating the results, and my guess is that probably 99 percent or more of my constituents feel that we need an elected Speaker.

We have got a private member's bill on an elected Speaker, and we will certainly be speaking on that bill again in this session. In fact, I think what we need to do is to have an agreement before the next election on how we are going to proceed after the election; otherwise, we are going to have a problem here. We are going to have the government appointing an acting Speaker, an interim Speaker. Then we are going to be arguing over how to elect the Speaker, how to change the rules to get an elected Speaker. That could cause some procedural problems.

I think it is in all our best interests to agree ahead of time on how we are going to elect the Speaker so that everybody is clear, everybody knows what the procedure is, that we amend the rules in the Manitoba Legislature in advance, regardless of which party is in power. Even better, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why wait two years? Why wait till after the next election? We could do it any time. The government can do it any time. In fact, I know that we were in favour of having an elected Speaker any time the government wants to pass a private member's bill or a government member's bill to change the rules of Manitoba Legislature.

I think the last quote that I have time for is by Philip Landry, "The Office of the Speaker," page 29: "Total impartiality is the basic requisite of the Speaker and in particular in a regard for the rights of minorities."

We believe that our rights have been violated. That is one of the reasons why we believe there needs to be an elected and impartial Speaker. I think the new Speaker will have a great deal more support than the current Speaker. There are some excellent people in this Chamber, both those who are bilingual and those who are not. I am sure that we can find someone that all members of the House could have confidence in and who would have the confidence of the public, so that the Speaker is not only impartial, but the Speaker is seen to be impartial. Thank you.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this matter, not because I think it is a matter that should have been brought back again, but the fact is, it has been brought back, and I am pleased to present a case against this resolution. We already have decided this matter. That will be my first point of argument, that the issue has already been decided by what is, in effect, the highest court of appeal in this Legislature, and that is by a decision of the majority party, democratically, by vote in this House.

* (1750)

I will go beyond that to deal with this whole question of precedent and what is the value of precedent and the importance of precedence in this House. I will also deal very briefly with some of the history, that is, the agreement that was behind the position that was ultimately taken by the majority on this side of the House, and that is the agreement about the rules. I will also go further than that and suggest, even though, if there were not a formal agreement, it would only be moral and fair that the Speaker do what she did in the circumstances. That is also why, I would submit, certainly I and others on this side of the House supported the ruling of the Speaker.

First, I want to deal with the already decided argument. The ruling of the Speaker was appealed, and it was brought to the House to vote and determine whether or not the Speaker's ruling should be upheld or not. In an open opportunity to express our positions, a vote was held and there was unanimous support on this side of the House for the ruling of the Speaker. This is not a situation where there is an ability to go outside and invoke the court system. We value our independence far too highly in this House. There can, of course, be an opportunity to go outside and make an argument, exercise all the freedoms that the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) referred to. That is the freedom of speech, to hold the majority party in this House accountable for the decision that was made.

I might say it is sometimes easier, unfortunately, to oversimplify these issues to the general public and try and win support and gain support for an argument that is incomplete. That is why it is important sometimes to put on the record, again, what is the background to the position of the Speaker and ultimately upheld by all of the members of the government party.

If you put yourself as an individual member of this House in the opposition as a member of a party that, through its House leader, agreed to something which involved the session ending on a specific date, it would be a closure. No one, I would submit, thought otherwise. You also add to that agreement the quid pro quo for that commitment of the official opposition, in fact, all parties in the House. The quid pro quo for that end of the session by agreement was the giving up of the right to introduce legislation after an agreed date in June, and also it was a commitment not to make amendments beyond the intended scope of those particular bills.

Those particular promises had already been fulfilled by October and November, certainly by November of 1996, in the Legislature. Those promises had been fulfilled by the governing party. What the individual members of the opposition parties did was to try and frustrate that promise. They tried to frustrate that promise by their conduct in the Legislature. They triggered, they signalled that that was the way they were going to be going, and it was obvious that was the way they were going to be going.

So it was necessary for the highest court of appeal in this House to ultimately determine the issue. The ultimate determiner of that issue was the majority party by upholding the Speaker's ruling, a ruling which I am not going to go into. Whatever that ruling was, I would submit it was a ruling done with the best of intentions, with courage, and with every effort to protect the integrity and the dignity of the Legislature. That was how it was perceived by the members on this side of the House. [interjection] That is the point. The honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says not by the public. It was not perceived that way by the public. That makes it all the more courageous a decision to make. It makes it all the more courageous for this governing party and its members to have made that decision to uphold that Speaker's ruling.

It was not done for the sake of popularity. It was done to respect the dignity and the integrity of the Speaker and the Legislature, because what was being attacked was the rules that were a product of an agreement between all members of the House. As unhappy as members might be with the consequences of the agreement at a particular time in circumstances that might not have been foreseen, the fact is that it was a situation where we perceived that the appropriate thing to do would have been to bite your tongue, swallow your temptations to frustrate a legislative process and respect the agreement. There was always another day and there was an accountability afterwards, and you can very appropriately share all of this with members of the public and your constituents, and you can argue that we were wrong. However, I would submit that, in all fairness, you should bring to their attention the fact of the agreement and the facts that show how this process works. The ultimate court of appeal in this forum is the majority party, and they are the ones who will ultimately determine whether the Speaker's ruling was right or wrong.

I want to move briefly to the quality of the precedent, because like in law every precedent depends on the circumstances. I would hope that the circumstances like this will never arise again, that there will never be an anticipated breach of an agreement incorporated in the rules of this Legislature. I hope that never happens again.

With respect to the morality and fairness, the fact that this government had already fulfilled its promise and fulfilled its commitment--by its activity in introducing the bills on time and giving up the right to make amendments that we would have liked to have made and have obliged us to now come back in this session and bring legislation in to do things that we could have done by amendment--that is taking advantage and that is simply unfair. We had a concept in law to protect against that, a concept in equity that would in effect stop, it would preclude, individuals and groups from taking advantage of that sort of situation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have five minutes remaining.

The hour now being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 1:30 p.m. Have a good weekend, and everybody go out and fight the flood.