Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): I must inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Madam Speaker and therefore, in accordance with the statutes, would call upon the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When the House adjourned yesterday, I was receiving advice respecting whether or not the matter of privilege raised by the honourable opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) met the conditions of privilege. As indicated then, I am prepared now to hear any additional advice members may wish to offer.

I believe this is a very important matter, and seeing as the House would not want it hanging in abeyance, as moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the ruling of June 24, that the words: "He was not happy enough lining the pockets of the Bay Street brokers and his political friends," in reference to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), were in contravention to Beauchesne, not be a precedence of this House and that "this House has no confidence in the Speaker of the House."

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will just speak for a moment on the main motion as opposed to the advice that we put on the record yesterday. We, of course, opposed the decision of the Speaker, and I want to say today that I regret that we again have to put a motion of nonconfidence in on the Speaker of this Chamber.

The matter that was taken as notice by the Speaker was taken last November, in 1996, a matter that she took under notice. To choose to bring back a ruling and a decision months later and report that ruling on the coincidence of a day in which the same member had moved an emergency resolution in this Chamber and had given the Speaker proper notice by putting that emergency resolution into her office beforehand is, in our opinion, a continuation of manipulation of this Chamber and of members of the opposition. We will not put up with manipulation by the Speaker, and so we again have to put this motion forward.

One must ask the question with this Speaker in dealing with this nonconfidence motion: Where is the ruling on the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his statements made to the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), something along the lines of kicking someone's lights out? Where is the ruling from the so-called unbiased Speaker dealing with a simple matter that took place months ago? We have not heard from the Speaker on this issue, but yet we see again manipulation after manipulation of the rules of this House and the traditions of this Chamber, and that is why I will be voting for the nonconfidence motion with free conscience again today.

* (1335)

I would also say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we believe that the decision on lining the pockets of brokers and other friends of the Premier is quite in order. It is on the public record that brokers did quite well after the sale of MTS. In fact, it is so well noted that Jaguar sales went up, according to the newspaper reports, with brokers purchasing Jaguars after the government broke its promise to sell the telephone system.

I will be voting for the nonconfidence motion, and so will our caucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, first of all, I have to say that yesterday when the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) stood up after the ruling and recognized the position of the Chair even though he disagreed with the person who sat in that position, it made me proud to be a member of this Legislative Assembly, and I give him full credit for that. However, I will not be voting for this nonconfidence motion with that member.

When we see matters of privilege, three in two days, it really denigrates the importance of matters of privilege, and when it becomes nothing more than a tactic--

An Honourable Member: Phoney tactical . . .

Mr. Kowalski: --to be used, as opposition uses many tactics, I have to say in general often the--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, a matter of privilege is a very serious matter, and the Premier from his seat was saying it was phoney tactical crap. I am wondering if you could ask the Premier to withdraw those kinds of comments and allow us to listen to the member for The Maples on what is a very serious matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): On the same point of order, I was agreeing wholeheartedly with the comments of the member for The Maples who identified, much to the embarrassment of the members of the New Democratic Party, how they are abusing this House and its rules and its institutions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by standing up on phoney points of privilege as a means of venting their frustration and anger against individual members of this House, and I stand by that comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I will have to listen to the Hansard--or read Hansard and see if the honourable First Minister's comments were picked up. The honourable First Minister did state that he stood behind "phoney," but the word that the honourable member for Thompson had concerns with, I will have to see if those words were picked up.

An Honourable Member: C-R-A-P, yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, I would like to see if those words were picked up, but if they were picked up, then I will come back to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for The Maples, to continue.

Mr. Kowalski: I often find myself in a quandary in these Chambers in that often my positions on policies and stuff on a number of matters is in line with what the official opposition--more often than not, they agree with me. More to their credit. But I often find, more often than not, I am in strong disagreement with the tactics used by the official opposition in these Chambers. I agree with their policies, but the tactics that are often used here I cannot agree with. When matters of privilege become nothing more than a tactic to be used to bring forward the MTS issue one more time, it reminds me of the one-trick pony.

This session has not been a very successful session for the official opposition. Because of the flood, because of the federal election, there has not been a lot of attention to this session. Possibly one way of trying to, in the waning days of the session--is bring up from the last session, which was very successful for the official opposition, I will grant you. They got a lot of attention. I am sure that in the polls, as a result of the previous session, they might have even increased. This session has not been. So they have gone back to their successful session and brought the one issue that they received the most attention to, MTS, and are trying to bring it forward again by using this matter of privilege.

Now they talked about the coincidence that the ruling came down on the same day that the Speaker was notified of a MUPI, but could I also look as to why in Question Period on that day the matter of MTS rate increases was brought forward when I believe the documents that the NDP brought forward were in their possession for more than one day. Could it be because they knew the ruling was coming down? Who knows? You can make assumptions. You could put facts together or perceive facts and assume that there are certain conspiracies that are not there. So, as far as the timing of the ruling coming down at the same time as the MUPI, I do not put much stock in that.

* (1340)

As far as the timing of the ruling in general, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said, when could the Speaker have brought down that ruling that it would not have been perceived as inflammatory? At the beginning of the session? In the first days of the session, then the official opposition would have been saying they are sabotaging the session by once more heightening the tension. What would I have done as Speaker? Would I have waited to near the end of the session when maybe relations seem to be better in the Chamber, there was an air of co-operation in the Chambers to bring it forward, or would I have taken the middle ground and tried for the middle of the session? I do not know, but I do not think there was any timing that would have been perfect for bringing down these rulings or the Speaker could have retired without ever bringing down a ruling, I guess. That was possible.

Now the other part is, once again, we have a motion of censure to the Speaker. You know, sometimes I have coached young children. I mean, you coach young children and they complain about the referee, what do I tell them? Never mind, go and play the game. Well, we have had how many motions of censure with the Speaker already, which is sort of a referee in this Chamber, and we have already heard complaints from the official opposition about the Speaker. We have had votes on it numerous times, and I am saying to the official opposition: Get over it. Play the game. Get on with the business of this Chamber.

If the actual purpose was try to get an elected Speaker, I know the member for Thompson knows how to get things accomplished, and he knows very well that every time this issue is brought forward, it is less likely we will have an elected Speaker. He knows that. He knows that, so why is he bringing it forward? To accomplish that purpose, to get an elected Speaker, or to make political points? What is his real purpose in bringing this forward? To get media attention in the waning days of this session, or does he really want--because I believe there is will on all sides of the House to get an elected Speaker, but every time this issue is brought forward, it sets it back to the opportunity that we will actually see one. So I will not be supporting the member's motion. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ashton: I just want to say that, first of all, I had no idea that the ruling was coming in yesterday. I do not think it would take too much to figure out that I do not exactly get much in the way of communication from the Speaker of this House. I think after seven months, seven months after the point of order was raised, I think that speaks for itself. Seven months, November 21, 1996, the point of order was raised. The ruling came in yesterday.

I also want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are two dimensions to this. The elected Speaker, I believe, is something--it is not a question of "if" anymore. It is a question of "when." I would just remind members who want the elected Speaker, do not blame the opposition that has brought forward a bill in this Legislature this session and the last session calling for an elected Speaker. Point the finger at the person who sits in the front row and seems to want, as Premier also, to be Speaker of this Chamber on a regular basis.

Members of this House and members of the public know there is only one person stopping us from having this matter, bringing confidence back to this House from being dealt with by electing a Speaker, and that is the Premier of this province. He has said publicly that he believes that that is the domain of the government, the Premier to be able to appoint someone. What I do not think he has recognized is that this is the 1990s, the House of Commons has an elected Speaker, the majority of Canadian provinces do, the House of Commons in Britain has an elected Speaker. I think it is not too much to ask this Premier to come into the 1990s and go along with the growing trend in Canadian and other jurisdictions of democratizing them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this issue is about more than that. It is not just about having a referee. This is like going to a court and having a judge that listens to only one side of the evidence. I have heard this from lawyers who have used this analogy. That is what happened November 27 and 28; we were not even recognized to speak in this House with the Speaker. That is why we then moved a motion of nonconfidence.

* (1345)

I think if you look at this session, we moved the motion of nonconfidence at the beginning of the session. We were willing to give this House an opportunity to function, to give even the Speaker a chance. But what happened yesterday? I found it absolutely incredible. The Speaker basically said that it was unparliamentary for me to have said that this government was lining the pockets of Bay Street and its political friends.

Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the evidence is clear. They were paid. The brokers were paid. They were beaten down, according to the Financial Post, to a $300,000 fee to decide whether they were going to sell off MTS. We knew the result of that.

Why did I use those comments? The brokers made $35 million even before the shares went on the open market. Cost of marketing, $5 million to $10 million. Profits on the stock flips, we anticipate around the range of $5.7 million. The stockbrokers made between $45 million to $50 million within the first few days of the sale of MTS. Now let us not forget that I said this in November. We said this in this House. We said the only people who would benefit from the sale of MTS would be the brokers. I could continue to look at some of the other profits that were made probably in excess of $100 million because of the action of this government.

I did not choose when the Speaker brought down this ruling, but you know one of the toughest decisions I have had to make as a member of this House was whether to withdraw those comments yesterday, and that was not an easy decision for me to do. I must say there were some who advised me not to do it, but I withdrew it out of respect for--and I say this to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski)--the office of the Speaker. The reason I moved this matter of privilege afterwards is because, first of all, that decision should not be allowed to stay as a precedent in this House, and, second of all, while I may respect the Speaker's Chair, I do not have any confidence left in the current occupant of the Speaker's office in this Chamber. That is the way you deal with things in Parliament.

There are some ironies of this, because what we were fighting for last year was democracy. We were fighting not for part-time democracy, the kind that the Premier--and I am not allowed to say he is not a dictator, and I will not get into that either, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot believe I actually even said that in the first place. But, you know, we are not a province where you can suspend democracy for two critical days to allow you to ram through one of the biggest decisions in Manitoba history because you did not have the courage to go to the people of Manitoba in an election, and you did not have the support to sell off our phone company. We do not allow that kind of part-time democracy.

But, you know, I thought it was kind of ironic that we were dealing with this matter, and this is not by my choosing, by the Speaker's choosing, the timing of bringing in the decision yesterday. I note that. This is within a matter of our finding out within days that we were right and the fact that what has happened is, while the stockbrokers and others may have benefited in this province, many Manitobans are going to see $3 and $4 and $5 and $6 and $7 a month increases in their phone bills. We are going to see Manitobans lose their phones while stockbrokers go out and buy new Jaguars and new Porsches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a shame, that is a crying shame.

* (1350)

I say that this issue is about the fundamental role that we have in this Legislature, which is to speak out on behalf of the people of Manitoba. I say to the Premier, again, because I regret, and I say to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), I would not want to see matters of privilege brought in, particularly on the Speaker of this House, in the way that we have done it. I would much rather have a Speaker that we can have confidence in in this House.

I have been in this Chamber now since 1981, and I have seen many Speakers. I know that people who have been in the Speaker's Chair know it is a difficult Chair, but I have never seen a Speaker who has so willingly turned a blind eye to members of the opposition to the point that we saw for two days, the critical point last session on MTS. We saw her refuse to even recognize members of the opposition. That has never happened, and I do not believe outside of the pipeline debate in 1956, which I referenced yesterday, there is very little precedent for this in Canadian history. We are taking unprecedented steps; what happened in this House surrounding the sale of MTS was unprecedented, but it was not our choosing yesterday, it certainly was not my choice to be told that I had to withdraw comments. They are absolutely accurate, that people in this province and on Bay Street had their pockets lined because of the sale of MTS. That is a fact, it is a fact, and I will never, ever withdraw the fact that that is exactly what happened.

I want to conclude by suggesting to members opposite--there is going to be a vote on this in a matter of moments. Well, we do operate by our rules and procedures in this House on most occasions. Of course, we have learned from the government that it seems to be at the--[interjection] Well, the Premier says, only when we have to rely on you. I say to this Premier, and I have to say this, because we are only 23 members in this House. We may speak for many Manitobans in our constituencies, certainly many of the key issues of the day. I think we are increasingly speaking for a majority of Manitobans, and I know they did not like that on MTS, they do not like it on a whole series of issues, but you know, this is a democratic province. And I say to the Premier, who has sat in this Chamber since 1979, he should know better. He should know better. And I say to the Premier, stop playing your petty, personal politics. Recognize that the Speaker of this House does not have the confidence of all members of this House. You do not have to do anything else, I believe, than accept that and move towards an elected Speaker. Come into the 1990s, show some fairness, I say to the Premier and to the government. You know, we will lose this vote if you put the Whip on. I say, think about it. There are better ways of proceeding in this House, and the way to start is by getting a Chair in that has confidence.

By the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to comment on the record, so members of the government know, that this is not NDP versus Conservative, that I have seen you function in this Chair as our Deputy Speaker, and we have full confidence in you as Deputy Speaker of this House. I appeal to the Premier and I appeal to the Speaker personally. Please return to your chair. Sit as the member for Seine River. No one will hold anything against you if you continue in your role as a member of this Legislature. The fact that you do not have confidence as Speaker does not prevent you from sitting in this House and functioning like any other member of the Legislature.

All we are asking for, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that our rights, as a minority in this House, be recognized and that we have full-time democracy, not part-time democracy.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, would like to add some words with respect to this particular debate as the member and Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) did yesterday, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did again yesterday. I think that it is important to repeat and get to the essence of exactly what it is that has actually happened. I like to believe, as all of us, no doubt, recognize the importance of a matter of privilege.

The first citation I would go to is Citation 27 when it states: "A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House."

* (1355)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can give you a hundred percent assurances that in fact I plan to abide by that particular clause, because I recognize the importance of a matter of privilege.

The first thing I would like to do is talk about another citation within Beauchesne's, and that is Citation 33: The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and then to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the Constitution Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of a House which may be added to, amended or repealed at the direction of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have a book. It is our own local rule book, and what I would suggest is that we all refer to page 28, Clause 40.(1) in which it states: No member shall speak disrespectfully of the reigning monarch or any other member of the Royal Family, or the Governor General, or of the Lieutenant Governor or a person administering the government of Manitoba, or use--and I emphasize this--or use offensive words against the House, or against any member thereof.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I explained yesterday, every Question Period, virtually without exception, almost in 40, 50 percent of the debates that occur inside this Chamber, I would argue that there are breaches of the rules. The Speaker's job and the Deputy Speaker's job is to, when a breach of the rules has occurred and someone brings it to the attention of the Speaker, there is an onus of responsibility for that Speaker to take some sort of action.

The day in question, the government House leader, Mr. Ernst, the member for Charleswood, stood up on a point of order and said, in fact, there was a breach of our rules, that something was said that was unparliamentary. Again, I would go to Beauchesne's, and what does Beauchesne say? There is a little bit of a conflicting on the two lists. You have the parliamentary words, and you have the words that are unparliamentary, and you will have some words that are on both lists. One would ask, why is that? The simple reason is you have to take into consideration the context of the way in which it is said. I would suggest to you, again, you look at Beauchesne's Rule 491 in which it states: "The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary."

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was here like everyone else when this whole ordeal occurred; and when that whole ordeal occurred, we saw people walking across the floor, making all sorts of gestures, we had individuals yelling and virtually jumping out of their seats. It was not a proud day to be an MLA and talk about decorum inside this Chamber. The issue, I agree wholeheartedly, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) spoke with passion, and I personally agree with the issue in itself that he speaks of.

But what we are talking about are the rules of this Chamber and how we are going to ensure that those rules are in fact adhered to. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you take a look at the context in which it was put, that setting, and the fact that someone in the House stood up on a point of order to bring the attention and request a retraction, the Speaker did what in all likelihood I would have done had I been the Speaker and would have taken it as notice, or possibly if you wanted to, you could have taken some action right then and there, no doubt about that. Then someone might have argued that she was being unfair, favouring the government at the time, because it was a motion that did not reflect positively on the New Democrats, but it was taken as notice. That is something that is in fact acceptable. I stood up and I gave advice back then. You have to take a number of things into consideration.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the words that were used in that context were in fact unparliamentary. I do not want to take the government's side. Earlier yesterday in Question Period, there was another point of order in which they were challenging the Speaker. The Speaker was wrong, and we voted against the Speaker. As I have indicated many times before, I have a lot of problems with the Speaker, and I will continue to fight to try to get better representation from within this Chamber so that the Liberal Party is able to convey our thoughts and our beliefs when virtually one out of every four Manitobans voted for our party. That debate will continue.

* (1400)

The reason for this particular matter of privilege is because there was discontent, or they were not satisfied with the ruling of the Speaker. To that degree, I would say that the Speaker did make an accurate ruling. There are other issues that came out of it outside of the wording or exactly what it is that the minister or the Speaker were being accused of. The other issue was the one of timeliness. Why did it take so long for the Speaker to make this ruling? Well, it is interesting--and again yesterday I did make reference to it, so my apologies for those who might think this is somewhat repetitive. On Monday, June 23, the Speaker made two rulings. I quote directly from the Speaker from Monday. It states: "On October 29, 1996, during Question Period, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the opposition House leader." That is October 29. That was the first one on that day.

The next one: "I took under advisement during Question Period on November 7." Again it is a date that occurs; it is the second one; it is after October 29. From what I understand and I had it confirmed from the member, I think it was from the Interlake and so forth, that this one was November 21. So the chronological sequence of matters being taken under advisement seem to be somewhat in order here. Now, I have a problem with the Speaker taking so long in reporting back on privileges, and as I reflected yesterday, I can recall when the former Minister of Finance walked out of a committee room. I do not think the Speaker ever made any sort of a report back on that particular incident. I do not believe there was ever a ruling that came back. I could be corrected on that because that happened a number of years ago.

But what would have been of some benefit when you moved the matter of privilege, there should have been some sort of a backdrop in terms of how long on average does it take for a Speaker. Is in fact this the first time? You should know that before you move a motion of censure. One would expect that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So I am not quite buying into that.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party put an excellent point in his comments yesterday and reinforced it again today. That was the coincidence of the Speaker bringing forward the matters that were taken under advisement on this same day in which the New Democratic Party was going to bring forward a MUPI. There is some merit to that, and the only thing that I could come up with in terms of responding to that--because I plan on supporting the Speaker; I am not going to be voting for this particular motion--the only thing that I look at is that the mover of the motion, the member for Thompson, yesterday spoke well in excess of an hour on this matter of privilege. Ninety-five percent of the discussion was on the debate of MTS, of which I agree with the points that the member for Thompson was talking about with respect to MTS, but I cannot recall the member for Thompson bringing up the coincidence of the matter of urgent public importance and the motion.

It is something which, again, now who do I believe--the official opposition or the Speaker? Well, as a member of the opposition, I want to make sure that I am doing what I believe and my colleagues believe is the proper thing to do on this issue, and having said that, I would suggest to you that the moment the current Speaker was appointed Speaker of this House the New Democrats never supported her. [interjection]

I would argue that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they believed--and you have to be careful when you say that is not true because we could probably pull articles where people were saying, well, the former Speaker should have been reappointed, and so forth. So we have to be very, very careful. We seconded the motion and so forth, but I do not want to be manipulated in the sense of wanting to be brought into a picture to try to dump on a Speaker. Last fall, there were a number of things that occurred in this Chamber which I am not proud of as an MLA, to a certain degree participated in it, and the Speaker did make a very significant event in the donning of a helmet that people refer to. It was supposed to be a symbol of the war of words that was going on or taking place at that point in time. I think that it captured--[interjection]

Technically, we were not sitting, but anyway there were some things in which I believe the Speaker made very bad judgments on and I opposed right out, and I think it would be scary if in fact it was left as precedent setting. But the ruling that was made by the Speaker yesterday was, in fact, an appropriate ruling. It was in accordance with the rules. There should be no doubt in the minds of any member of this Chamber, any member of the media or the public. It was a proper ruling. Our rules, and even the rules in which we go by that were set--this little blue book states that in fact the Speaker was correct. This particular rule book was passed and adopted by different political parties. The New Democratic Party supported this rule book; the Conservative Party supports it. There are a few amendments I would personally like to see in this book, like more recognition for us poor Liberals; but, having said that, that one quotation that I cited that all of us are honourable, well, that is a part of the rules. The lining of the pockets and all the other naughty things that we said about the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and most of the time we get away with it where no one raises it on a point of order--all those naughty things I have full intentions on using them in the next provincial election if at all possible, if I can legitimize it. If it is an accurate statement, outside of this Chamber, I have full intentions of using it. I applaud the member for Thompson when he uses it outside the Chamber, but always remember when we are inside the Chamber that there are some rules. Those rules do have to be followed.

We do not want to marginalize the importance of a matter of privilege. I have stood on matters of privilege. Many might question to what degree they were actually matters of privilege also in the past, and I might be open to some criticism on that, but I do believe that my intent has been one of trying to bring justice to the situation.

This particular matter of privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cannot be justified, given the explanations that have been put on the record from the New Democratic side. With those few words, I am quite prepared to vote.

Mr. Filmon: I will attempt to be brief and make just a few comments with respect to the issue we are facing. The first thing I want to say that I appreciate very much the contributions of the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I appreciate their attempt to look from a perspective of balance at this. In fact, I say that the member for The Maples has continued to enhance his standing in this House as a member who is known for his sense of fair play, for his balanced approach to issues and, I think, his unquestioned integrity in looking at these issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we are talking about here, I believe, is an attempt to misuse or abuse the rules of this House in an effort to debate and continue to whip to death, so to speak, the issues that were decided upon last fall, but in doing so there is a consistent pattern, and plenty of evidence to support that consistent pattern, of members opposite to vent their anger, frustration and dislike on certain members in the House. That includes the Speaker; that includes members on this side of the House who survive personal attacks day after day after day, as has been pointed out, I think, very accurately by the member for Inkster.

* (1410)

I think what is most unusual about this is that the primary perpetrator of this kind of activity is the very person who has put forth this motion, and what is unusual about it is that this individual, the member for Thompson, is also the opposition House leader. Many of us were at the funeral just a couple of weeks ago of Stanley Knowles, and during that discussion it was said that Mr. Knowles, the long-time House leader of the New Democrats in Parliament, was considered to be probably the foremost authority in Parliament on the rules of the House, and one of the things that he prided himself on was that he did not misuse or abuse the rules. When he got up on a point of order, he was listened to because it was indeed usually a legitimate point of order. In fact, Bill Blaikie told the story of the one time that he could recall, the one time in close to 20 years that he could recall, that Mr. Knowles did not probably have a legitimate point of order but used the opportunity to forestall some proceedings in the House; but, other than that, he was listened to and he was respected because when he got up he did not use a point of order, a phoney point of order, to try and, in some way, obstruct the rules or abuse the rules of the House.

Unfortunately, and we can see day after day after day, time after time in this House, the member for Thompson on phoney, fallacious points of order to try and just use it as an opportunity to vent a tirade on a particular issue or on particular individuals in this House, which is, I think, an unfortunate circumstance because it does not contribute to anybody's confidence that this House is willing to accept the rules that collectively we have established or the traditions, when the individual who, presumably, is there to see that the rules of the House are kept, gets up every day and abuses those rules himself, and becomes the leader in this endeavour.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with a matter of privilege. If you look at the comments of the Premier, I find it interesting he talks about personal attacks because most of the last ten minutes have been an attack on myself. I just want to say that I accept that coming from the source it does, but I take particular offence at the Premier using the name of Stanley Knowles in that context, because Stanley Knowles spent his entire career, and particularly during the 1956 pipeline debate, fighting for democracy, fighting against tyranny in the same way that I, on behalf of all 23 members of our caucus, do on a regular basis. He can say what he likes about me, but he should not bring in Stanley Knowles, who I believe if he were still alive today, and in fact if you would care to talk to him about what happened in this Legislature last December, would have said to the Premier that he was just as wrong as the government was in the 1950s. You want to attack me, you can do it, but do not use Stanley Knowles's name, because we are fighting for the legacy of Stanley Knowles in the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. But may I ask, as I did yesterday, that we be relevant to the matter that is before the House. I have cautioned members on both sides of the House.

The honourable First Minister, to continue.

Mr. Filmon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the member for Thompson for making my point. I was being complimentary to Stanley Knowles and in fact making the contrast between his behaviour as a House leader and the behaviour of the member for Thompson. As people are wont to say, I knew Stanley Knowles, and the member for Thompson is no Stanley Knowles.

The point that we have to consider here is that this point of privilege is not a point of privilege and as was I think adequately put forward by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), as Beauchesne says, a matter of privilege is something that ought rarely to be used. We have seen how often these phoney points of privilege have been used by the members opposite as a means to allow them to abuse individuals and abuse their rights here in this House. That is the kind of thing that this House could do well without in future.

We talk about the role of the Speaker and her opportunities and ability to try and maintain order in this House. I have to agree wholeheartedly with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that from the day that she took the Chair in this House, she was subject to constant provocation by members opposite as they came into this House and daily in Question Period abused the rules of Question Period with postambles and preambles and argumentative and repetitive questions.

When she attempted to maintain order, then the members opposite would taunt and abuse and challenge her at every opportunity. We had more times of her being challenged than any previous Speaker. We had more times in which the members opposite would use and abuse the rules of the House in Question Period in an effort to try and get her to make rulings that they could then challenge. That is the kind of abuse that has led to the circumstances that we find ourselves in in this House. The lack of decorum, the lack of respect, the lack of trust all flow from that attitude, which had its origins from the day that the Speaker took her place in that Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to say, given that attitude and given the attitude that was reconfirmed in his very words just moments ago by the member for Thompson, that he had to think seriously whether or not he was going to obey the ruling and retract his words.

Members opposite love, with great justification, to needle me and to make jokes and laugh about the times that I have withdrawn my comments in this House because the words were unparliamentary. No matter who is in that Chair, it has been my absolute commitment that I will get up and obey the words of the Speaker, the rulings of the Speaker, withdraw the words time and again, which is why they have so much material to go on, but that member for Thompson, the opposition House leader says, he had to decide whether or not he was going to accept the rules of the House or the ruling of the Chair.

That is the level of commitment that he has to the rules of this House that have been jointly agreed upon to the traditions of this House which have decades of history behind them, but he has to decide. He says against the best advice of most of his colleagues, he withdrew his words. Talk about a hangdog approach to whether or not you want to agree with the rules of this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is shameful. It is shameful, but it is exemplary of why we have the circumstances we have in this House, the lack of decorum, the lack of understanding or support of the rules, the lack of trust and respect that occurs in this House.

* (1420)

So, I say, it would not matter whether the Speaker was appointed, was elected or was anointed, as long as the members opposite have so little respect for the rules and proceedings of this House that they are willingly going to abuse those rules and those procedures with phony points of order, phony matters of privilege and the constant abuse of the rules in Question Period. It would not matter how the Speaker got into that Chair. This House would not operate as it should because of their attitude.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)

That the ruling of June 24, that the words "he was not happy enough lining the pockets of the Bay Street brokers and his political friends" in reference to the Premier were in contravention to Beauchesne "not be a precedent of this House and that this House has no confidence in the Speaker of the House."

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

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

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay?

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The motion has been defeated.

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

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

The question before the House is the motion moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the ruling of June 24 that the words "he was not happy enough lining the pockets of the Bay Street brokers and his political friends" in reference to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) were in contravention to Beauchesne not be a precedent of this House and that this House has no confidence in the Speaker of the House.

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

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

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

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 20, Nays 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion is accordingly defeated.