Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am rising on this occasion to take advantage of my opportunity as an elected member of this Chamber on a personal grievance.

I know that the issue of the privatization of MTS has caused a good deal of furor both inside and outside of this Chamber, and what is surprising, perhaps not so surprising, is the fact that members opposite seem to be caught, they seem to be surprised by the fact that Manitobans are opposed to the sale of MTS, and comment after comment indicates that members opposite are somehow surprised that Manitobans are against the decision of this government to privatize MTS.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

I say that is both surprising and not surprising because it is clear that this government is out of touch, out of step with the thinking and the feeling of Manitobans in general. It is not surprising because a government that has been in office for eight long years, eight long years that have seen year after year projections of the economy booming again, next-year country, next year the economy is going to get better, next year the Conference Board says it is happening, over and over again after eight long years of government, of cutbacks in all areas of government and of false hopes and expectations, this government has completely gone out of touch with the aspirations, the needs, the wants and the very tempo of average Manitobans.

* (1440)

The members opposite, if they would have talked to their constituents, would have heard things like I heard from my constituents. I got phone calls on MTS. I got letters on MTS, and what kind of things did I hear? Things like, the rich get richer and only rich Manitobans will be able to buy up our telephone resources. Questions like, why sell it off in the first place? Do we not own it? Questions like, who has given these people the right to sell off our phone company? If members opposite were in touch and in sync and in step with their constituents, they would not have been caught by surprise by the general reaction in Manitoba against the government policy to sell MTS.

I think the government has crossed a line. It has made a fatal mistake in terms of the governing of the province of Manitoba. I believe one of the major reasons why Manitobans are so solidly against the sale of MTS is they question the legitimacy, the very legitimacy of members opposite to conduct business on behalf of Manitobans. And why do I say that? We saw the beginnings of that early in this year, early this year when the government secretly was planning to privatize the home care system. They were secretly planning to privatize the home care system. Fortunately we were able to find out. We got the cabinet document. We made the cabinet document public and Manitobans rose up en masse across all political lines, Liberals, Conservative, Tory, Reform, you name it, they were opposed to the government's privatization of home care. Now, the government did not campaign on the privatization of home care about a year earlier. The government was secretly planning to do it behind the backs of Manitobans. Therein lies the difficulty. Therein lies the major problem with the legitimacy of this government.

Manitobans said, why are you taking a home care program that is recognized around the world as one of the best and secretly privatizing? When Manitobans rose en masse to oppose the privatization of home care, they were rising en masse against the legitimacy of a government that was secretly, under cover, trying to privatize an entity. If otherwise, why did the government not make an announcement about the privatization of home care? Why did they not go out publicly and discuss it with Manitobans? But they did not, and Manitobans knew it. And this government received a very, very serious loss of legitimacy and loss of credibility when they attempted to behind the backs of Manitobans privatize the home care system.

Is it any surprise that the streets of Rossmere and the streets in River Heights and the streets in Tuxedo and the streets in virtually every section of Winnipeg were lined with signs against this government's plan to privatize home care. It is because this government went over the line. This government had no legitimate mandate to privatize home care. They tried to do it, and Manitobans resoundingly said no to privatization, no to secret deals and no to this government's attempt to foist their little view, their little minority view, upon the viewpoint of the majority of Manitobans.

So that leads us to the privatization of MTS. In fact, this is the second blow to the government's attempt to have legitimacy. During the election campaign members opposite were elected on a mandate not to privatize the Manitoba Telephone System. Sometime between the election and the revealing in this House that in fact they were going to privatize Manitoba Telephone System, somehow the government said things had changed. Nothing had changed fundamentally.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

What had changed was the government's word. What had changed was the Premier's (Mr. Filmon's) promise. What has changed was the promise of all the candidates across that way, Madam Speaker. The government changed its mind and basically was dishonest with Manitobans. Therein lies the difficulty members are now experiencing with the sale of MTS, because the government, whose very legitimacy was questioned during the home care debacle, has now been legitimately again questioned by their attempt to secretly privatize MTS after promising definitively not to do so.

So members opposite ought not to be surprised that the public is questioning not just the sale of MTS but the very legitimacy of this government. The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) knows full well that when the public begins to question the very legitimacy of a government, that is the end of the game. Is it not a surprise? Most governments generally have an electoral pattern of two terms, eight years. Eight years. It has been the conventional political course of events in Manitoba and in other Canadian provinces that a government generally gets two terms, eight years, and after that their time is up.

It is clear that this government's time is up. It is not coincidental that in fact it has now been eight years, eight long years that these members opposite have been in office. It is not a surprise that their legitimacy is questioned. The very fundamental nature of what they do is questioned.

Let us look at what the members opposite offer as arguments for why they broke their promise, as arguments for why they have lost legitimacy. You know, the only thing they can do, the only arguments that they can muster in this Chamber day after day, Question Period after Question Period, is to go back to the 1970s, to go back to the 1980s. They go back and they question decisions that were made 20 and 25 years ago. Madam Speaker, do they not have a legitimate argument for what they are doing? Is that the only reason they can come forward with political rhetoric tying back to the 1970s and the 1980s?

In this House in the Chamber today, what did the Premier (Mr. Filmon) refer to? What did the Minister for Telephones (Mr. Findlay) refer to? What did the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) refer to? Did they talk about their policies? Did they have the intellectual arguments available? Do they have any arguments available? No. They referred back to decision made in 1970 and 1980. They do not have arguments. They cannot justify the decision to privatize MTS.

And so, if they cannot muster up arguments in this Chamber to justify their decision to privatize MTS, is there any wonder that out there in Manitoba, out there in the suburbs of Winnipeg, out there in downtown Winnipeg, out there in northern Manitoba or out there in rural Manitoba, people are questioning and indeed are against this government's initiative? They cannot even mount an argument. Why can they not mount an argument? Because they have no legitimate justifiable arguments to support their position. They do not have any arguments.

Then the question becomes, why are they doing what they are doing? That is what my constituents have been saying. They have been phoning and saying, why are they doing what they are doing? When you look at the feeble attempt, the $400,000 advertising campaign that crashed into the ground, if you look at the attempts to move the argument off of an argument about the merits or the not merits of privatization and move it on to the opposition, Madam Speaker, that is the oldest trick in the book. The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and the members opposite know that. They attack. They attack the opposition; they attack the populace; they attack everyone involved, but they do not have the intellectual integrity. They do not have the political arguments to support their position, so their position becomes one of attack. Their position becomes one of try to undermine those that are criticizing, that are formulating the arguments that in fact are destroying the very positions that they are trying to represent.

The difficulty with the government's position, I think and in fact I believe, is that the government's legitimacy is completely and totally in question. You have crossed over the line, and I dare say, Madam Speaker, from this point on almost every single government initiative that they will announce will be met with the same skepticism and will be met with the same disbelief and the same lack of legitimacy by Manitobans in general. Once you have lost the trust of Manitobans, it is virtually impossible to gain back that trust.

It is virtually impossible to go back to the good old days when the government was a government of minority and at that time attempted to legitimately listen to the needs and aspirations of Manitoba. Those days are gone. You cannot gain back the trust. You lost it on home care. You have lost it on MTS. You have now lost it. You have lost the trust of Manitobans. You know, therefore, it makes it very difficult for the members on this side to pose questions because when we ask questions on the MTS issue, the government responds with a bunker mentality, with rhetoric and with no discernible attempt to try to answer the questions, and there is no better example than the question of land rights, the question of property, questions that were raised by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) today. The government--that is considered basically illegitimate by most Manitobans--the government did not even have the forthrightness to approach aboriginal people and say, by the way, these properties, these agreements entered into on your lands, do you think that our moving these rights to a private corporation that will ultimately be run outside of Canada--I would suggest, outside of the jurisdiction of Manitoba, certainly--would you perhaps give us a comment or an opinion or a viewpoint as to what we are doing? No, they did not even approach those affected.

That is again illustrative of a government that has lost its mandate, that has lost its direction, and it has lost its ability to discuss issues with those it affects. The natural tendency in a government therefore is to hunker down, to close in on themselves, to sit in the cabinet room and sit around and then to say, how do we get out of this mess? Well, first of all, we will announce another public relations campaign or we will give Barb Biggar more money to do more of a PR campaign, but it will not work. Manitobans are not listening.

* (1450)

It really is a sad day for this province. It is sad to see a government after eight years lose its credibility, lose its legitimacy in the eyes of Manitobans. It is a sad day for Manitobans. This is a tired, out-of-touch government. This is a government that Manitobans do not have faith or confidence in, and the right course of action would be either to relinquish what little control you have on this government, Madam Speaker, or--which I think is probably more realistic--to admit you made a mistake, to go back to the drawing boards, to talk to Manitobans, to do public hearings, see what Manitobans say on MTS and then revise your policy on MTS, and I dare say, if the government had the courage, the intestinal fortitude to go out and speak with Manitobans, they would find that the bill would be withdrawn in short order and forthwith in this House. Thank you.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your ruling on the implementation of Rule 102.(1) of the Provisional Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of this Assembly. Rule 102.(1) states, notwithstanding Rule 73 and subject to Rules 102.(2) and 102.(3), all government bills will normally receive a vote on third reading not later than the last day of the fall sitting of that session.

The provisional rules, including 102.(1), were unanimously recommended to the Assembly by the Standing Committee on Rules of the House at its meetings on February 22, 1996, and March 12, 1996. These rules were unanimously adopted by this Assembly on April 2, 1996, for immediate implementation. These provisional rules were reached by a consensus amongst all three political parties elected to this Assembly who collectively represent all of the members of this House.

The opposition House leader summed up that consensus in a statement to the standing committee at its meeting on February 22 when he said and I quote from Hansard, I just wanted to note that this is a time that is not used very often. The rules committee of the House has not met for many years, I believe, and I am certainly glad that we are meeting to discuss the consensus that has been reached in the principles of rules reform and to try to put the substance to that consensus. I suspect it may not be as easy as it appears, so I think we have some work ahead of us, but I think it is a statement of the commitment of members of the House generally to not just change the rules but parliamentary reform. I think we are doing some very innovative things, and I hope this trial period over the next year will lead to some permanent changes in the future.

Madam Speaker, the basis for these provisional rules are contained in a memorandum of understanding dated December 22, 1995, signed by the opposition House leader, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) on behalf of the Liberal members, and myself as the government House leader, and I would like to table a copy of that memorandum of understanding at this time.

It is important to understand what the intent was of all three parties in this House in the creation of Rule 102.(1), and I wish to quote from the memorandum of understanding under the section entitled Legislation, Paragraph 1: "Government bills will be introduced, printed and distributed during the spring sitting. All bills so introduced will proceed to a vote on third reading and royal assent not later than the final day of the fall sitting."

The rationale for this process was to ensure that legislation was introduced and available to the public well in advance of its final consideration by the Legislature. The public and members of the opposition would have several months to consider the formal bills, consult with any persons they deemed desirable and have a full understanding of the legislation when the House resumed in the fall sitting.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, November 12, 1996, you ruled that the last day of the fall sitting in the current session is the last Thursday in November. The exact date then is November 28, 1996. All government bills with the exception of Bill 67 have received third reading. The prerequisite for Rule 102.(1) is Rule 100, which states and I quote: "All government bills are to be introduced, read a first time, printed, distributed and moved for Second Reading not later than the last day of the spring sittings of that Session."

The government has complied with Rule 100 with respect to Bill 67. Bill 67 was read a first time on May 27, 1996, printed and then distributed to the House on May 31, 1996, and moved for second reading on June 4, 1996, two days prior to the end of the spring sitting. Provisional Rules 102.(2) and 102.(3) govern circumstances not applicable to the status of Bill 67 and therefore do not apply. While provisional Rule 102.(1) is clear in its intent and is strongly supported by paragraph 1 of the section dealing with legislation contained in the December 22, 1995, memorandum of understanding referred to earlier and tabled at that time, it does not contain the legislative mechanism to implement that intent. As this Assembly unanimously adopted Rule 102.(1) on April 2, 1996, the Legislature has the right to expect that Bill 67 will come to a vote in accordance with Rule 102.(1). I submit that if Rule 102.(1) is included in our rules and proceedings, it is intended to be implemented, and it is your responsibility as the Assembly's presiding officer to determine its implementation.

Beauchesne's Principles of Parliamentary Law include, and I quote: "to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner."

Therefore I propose that debate on Bill 67 be interrupted, prior to the normal adjournment hour on November 28, 1996, in order to give effect to Rule 102.(1) and that the necessary proceedings commence well enough in advance so that sufficient time is allowed to complete report stage if necessary, third reading and royal assent, even if commencement of this process is required prior to November 28, 1996, in order to be accomplished. I further propose, Madam Speaker, that in making your ruling, you set down a schedule of dates and times when the votes on each stage will be conducted. In that way, confusion will be avoided and all members of the House will be aware of the timetable well in advance of its implementation. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would first of all question whether indeed this is a point of order. You are being asked to make a ruling which, in effect, would involve not just an interpretation of the rules but, by the government House leader's own words, an addition to the rules to implement the view that was just put forward by the government House leader.

I must say I am somewhat amazed that the same government that on the 7th of November said the rules were off and last week the same government that, through most of the time, accused us of hiding behind the silly rules of the House is now asking you on this Monday to essentially bring in a ruling that would bring in closure on Bill 67. That is unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, the rules that the government House leader referenced are interesting, because, throughout the rules and throughout the discussions that took place, there were qualifications that were put in place about the normal situation. I would point out there have been numerous times in this session where bills have been brought in under mechanisms which went outside of the rules through unanimous consent because they were not normal situations. We had a number of bills that were brought in in this fall session by agreement, and that was recognized very clearly.

In fact, the sittings of the House--it is interesting the government House leader did not reference the sittings of the House because if he wanted to follow the letter of the rules, he would have gone to the first part of the rules, Rule 2.(1) which makes it very clear that the House will normally sit in spring sittings and in fall sittings, and duration of fall sittings, (3)(a): "The fall sittings of the House will normally be eight weeks"--no reference to that. In fact, when it was convenient for the government last week, they said, well, it was not really eight weeks. But now when it is convenient for the government to say, well, actually, it was not eight weeks but it was really this end part of November--let us deal with what the end part of November is, Madam Speaker, because the government House leader knows exactly what that referenced. That was the end date of the original calendar which was predicated on a normal sitting of eight weeks. That is why it is there. What happened was the actual date of sitting that was followed was decided upon after the draft rules. So let not the government House leader suggest there is some magical significance to November. Let the government House leader also explain why such mechanisms--if the government wants to use them--such as closure, are still part of the rules.

* (1500)

We never agreed to a set of rules that would allow the Speaker here, on the request of the government House leader by a point of order, to have closure attached according to her indicating when there should be a schedule for votes. Madam Speaker, closure is in place in these rules. All the government House leader has to do is rise, give notice, and then debate will continue the following day, conclude at two in the morning.

But, Madam Speaker, I think the government House leader knows why he is not doing that--because that is unprecedented in Manitoba history, and there is still a lot to debate on the sale of MTS. We are dealing with a situation where we have approximately 40 amendments.

I want to deal with this new sort of revisionist view of the rules here, because how can the government House leader explain--and I would like him to reread some of this words from last week and the government itself--how we were supposed to originally, according to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who seemed quite exercised that we were not finished on the 7th, pass a bill which had not even gone through a committee and for which government amendments were made the following day.

Madam Speaker, this was a government that did not even bother to consult with a lot of the employees about pensions until the Thursday, the 7th.

An Honourable Member: First Nations . . . .

Mr. Ashton: They had not consulted with First Nations at all until--I do not even know if they still have. Maybe if it is taken to court, they will.

This is a government that wanted to ram through consideration of clause by clause and end public debate at 3:22 in the morning on Wednesday. Now, let them not try through this bogus point of order, because it is not a point of order--what the government House leader is attempting to do is have you, Madam Speaker, enforce their view of the rules, force sections of the rules that are not actually in there which are in their minds and their intent.

Let us look at the reality of the situation. You know, perhaps the government has taken a full week now to understand that it cannot and will not be allowed by the people of Manitoba to ram through Bill 67, whether it be at 3:22 in the morning on committee stage, whether it be on the Thursday evening, whether it be any day of the week. Maybe they have taken some time now to recognize that there are a lot of people against this. Maybe they are actually saying now, too--unlike the Premier last week who was saying, we will sit here until December and January. Does anybody remember that? The Premier was willing to sit here as long as it took. I think what they did, they sat down on the weekend and they said, a lot of people are against this. A lot of people are against this, Madam Speaker, so let us get out of this, but we are not going to bring in closure. That would be unheard of in Manitoba history. We have a better idea; let us get up on a point of order and get the Speaker to bring in closure.

Madam Speaker, I cannot think of anything that is more absurd. The rules make very clear about the normal situation. We passed through every single bill except one which was still in committee. The Premier (Mr. Filmon), the government House leader stormed out of here on November 7, said the rules are off. Now we have--they spent most of last week trying to practise government techniques of obstructing the House. I was amazed, I must admit--the first time I have heard government try and adjourn the debate.

But, Madam Speaker, they should understand one thing. This House has always operated, particularly when it comes to the rules, in a fashion that recognizes a number of things. One is that you have full debate on each and every issue. Bill 67 deals with the largest financial transaction in Manitoba history. It impacts 98 percent of the population who use phones. Even in the pension issues, which they did not want to deal with until one day after the supposed end date of the session, out of the original draft, the value of the pensions alone is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We had the largest number of presenters, 185, that I can remember on any bill in the last two decades. By the way, 182 opposed the bill. This is the situation that was envisioned in the rules when it says that normally you deal with the 72 other bills we dealt with, but in actual fact, this was a very abnormal situation.

I say to the government, they are the ones that set the schedule for committees. I want to put this on the record. They decided not to sit Friday and Saturday evening the week before; they did not even want to sit Monday. They tried to ram it through without any agreement from the opposition at 3:22 in the morning. Mind you, I think they learned a little bit about the fact that opposition still have some rights in this House, including the right to speak. But, Madam Speaker, they are caught in a mess of their own creation. If they had taken the time to first of all consult with the people of Manitoba, they would not be in this mess, they would not have Bill 67 before us, but this is an abnormal situation.

I want to point specifically to the government House leader that if he wants to deal with Bill 67 and if it has not completed discussion by next week, the rules are very clear. He does not have to just bring in closure, because I do not think he will do that because it would be unprecedented in Manitoba history. He has the opportunity--and I notice again, extraordinary circumstances. This is the section he did not read. "The House may deviate from the sessional calendar, outlined in sub-rules (2) and (3)." This is the last Thursday in November section he was referencing. While the House is adjourned the Speaker may, after consultation with government, if public interest requires the House should meet at an earlier time, the House could be brought back. That deals with the situation where we would have had to come back in before September 16. But to the government House leader, who seems to want to ignore this section of the rules, while the House is in spring or fall sittings, if a motion to exceed the concluding dates specified in subrules (2) and (3) is passed by the House.

What does that mean? It means that the government needs time to go past the eight weeks, like it did. We disagree with that. We do not think we are legitimately sitting according to this draft, that we believe they should have moved a motion at that time. They can do the same now.

So, Madam Speaker, let the government House leader recognize, when he rose on the so-called point of order, that the only way this House functions is when there is some degree of consensus. I do not know what the government expected from us on Bill 67. They expected us to hijack the committees while the pensions of 6,000 Manitobans were at risk? Did they expect us to somehow pass the bill through third reading and then have it go through committee one day later? It does not work that way.

Do they expect us to come in here and not--now that they have on the record said that the rules, the agreement has been broken by us--debate this with the due diligence it requires? I do not know of anyone who would spend less due diligence on selling a corner store than this government has in selling a $1-billion corporation.

The government has choices under the rules. We have choices under the rules. If it is not time to complete by the end of November, the way to do it is to either extend the sitting or if they want to bring in closure, we will fight that draconian antidemocratic measure, but those two options are available without dragging you, Madam Speaker, into a situation where you would be politicized. You would be involved in enforcing interpretations of the rules that go beyond your role as the independent arbitrator of this House, that would involve you in fact having to invent rules to live up to the government House leader's view of the world.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the government House leader on this point of order, go back to the drawing board, recognize that you are in a situation collectively on that side of your own making, do not try and get the Speaker to bail you out. We have rules and they include the permission to extend the sitting. If they want to bring in closure, let them face the consequences and let us not waste the time of the House with what is, in my view, not a legitimate point of order whatsoever, and I would urge you to reject it out of hand.

* (1510)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On the same point of order, I too would like to add the remarks from our perspective, from the Liberal Party's perspective, primarily because we were one of the three signatories, or I personally was one of the signatories representing my two other colleagues in the Legislature with respect to what I believed at the time back in December of '95 was a very positive thing for Manitobans.

For the first time, the Chamber, after a number of years of talking about changing the rules, there was an actual agreement that was achieved, and I was quite proud, quite frankly, to have been involved in the process and was pleased to be one of the signatories to this particular agreement because what it did is it brought, I believe, a little bit more sanity to the Chamber. It allowed for more of an orderly flow of government and opposition business to the whole system, and to that end we were very supportive, as every member of this Chamber was back in December of '95, when there was an agreement that was signed by, as has been mentioned by the government House leader, the official opposition House leader, myself and the government House leader.

Madam Speaker, as we look into those provisional rules, some of the things that really came to light for me and our caucus was the fact that here we are now going into a session where in the spring you are talking about a budget and in the fall you are talking about legislation with the benefits of having the bills that are going to be debated in the fall actually being tabled so the official opposition, in fact all members of this Chamber, would have an opportunity through the summer to go out and talk about the legislation that is before the House. I know first-hand that I did get that sort of an experience to be able to talk about the legislation, and I trust all members had that opportunity. So I was quite happy in the sense that it seemed that these rule changes were in fact going to have a very positive impact for Manitobans as a whole.

I believe that there is some merit to arguing that if you sign a document, there is an obligation for you to live up to that agreement. There is no doubt about that. Now, again, there would be some argument that, look, if you sign in principle an agreement and the understanding was--because I was one of those signatories--is that we were going to be getting--and I do not know the exact date so I would have to go back to some of my notes that I had taken from those meetings--but it was this day we were going in, this day we were going out for the spring session, this day, and I believe it was September 16, we were going into the fall session with expectations that we would be out on November 7. The rules themselves state that the last Thursday of November would in fact be the ending of the session. Well, Madam Speaker, that was the impression that I had when I signed my name to the piece of paper.

But after saying that, I would look at what the government is doing with respect to the Manitoba Telephone System, and there is a valid argument that could be made and brought forward to say that it should supersede any other agreement because of the very nature in which this government or the way in which this government has dealt with the selling of Manitoba Telephone System. As I say, that is a valid argument. But if you believe that argument, then you have to ask the question, to what degree--like, if you say, look, on principle I feel that this is such a bad piece of legislation that we are going to do what we can, even though it violates an agreement which we signed as an official opposition party.

If you feel that strongly, then I would be inclined to say that on principle maybe it is a good thing in terms of what it is that they are doing, but you have to ask the question, if that is in fact the case, to what degree did the official opposition resist the sale of MTS? Did they not pass all of the other legislation? [interjection] Yes, but could not that legislation have been used as a lever to try to get gains with respect to the Manitoba Telephone System legislation? You play a card. I was a part of a caucus where you do not--once you start giving up levers, you start losing the opportunity to be able to come up with compromises to be able to prevent things from happening.

Why did we see all the legislation pass last Thursday? Why? [interjection] It was in the agreement the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) talks about. That is the point that I am trying to say, that if in principle you believe that you have to at all costs prevent the sale of MTS, then why not prevent to all extents, use all the vehicles that were there for you to put up the roadblock to prevent this nasty government from selling Manitoba Telephone System? That is what I would ask, and there were many--[interjection] No, nasty, not Nazi.

Madam Speaker, why were all those tools put to the side and not used in order to frustrate this government in order to prevent this Bill 67 from getting as far as it has? As I asked today in Question Period, as an opposition party, the opposition can, even to this day, bring in through different procedures--they can have the Clerk of the Chamber every day--23 members of the NDP caucus could stand up and have a half-hour petition, and I make this as a suggestion which they might want to do. They can have the Clerk stand up and read each one of those. They can come up with rulings and challenge the Speaker. There are so many rules that are there that could allow this government and if they--I am more than happy to, and I will not even charge a consulting fee, sit down with the New Democratic caucus and share with them some of the ideas in terms of exactly what they can do to frustrate this government.

That is the reason why, today, I asked the Premier, would he give the assurance that they would not bring in closure? I did it for a reason, because I believe that, if the opposition party did believe what they say or want to act on what they believe, there are so many mechanisms out there that I believe that the government would then have to bring in closure. They would not have any choice. Either that or we could be in here till February, March of next year. They are the mechanisms that are there.

It is interesting, Madam Speaker, because this is not the first time that I gave a speech of this nature. My colleague from The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) provided a clipping from Arlene Billinkoff, whom we all know, from an article on June 4, 1991, and I just want to quote what it is that she made reference to. The headline is, Ashton in Wonderland as NDP urges closure. It quotes: Gary Filmon was appalled that the NDP, which said it stands for democracy, would try to cut people's right to speak. Closure has been used by governments to cut off lengthy debate, he said, but the NDP was using it for cheap political thrills. It was the most ignorant thing he had ever seen. It is proof of the NDP irrational thinking, Filmon charged. They only wanted to play old-style politics, political games and he was glad they had been exposed for what they really are.

The Premier was correct when he made those assertions about the New Democrats back then. There is no doubt about that, and I am sure the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) recalls the incident which we are actually referring to. We have to prevent any form of closure that prevents MLAs the opportunity to debate the different issues, and that is where the Liberal Party stands on this particular issue of closure. But having said that, one has to question the basic principle of what it is the New Democrats are doing, primarily because I would argue that if they really in principle oppose what it is that they were doing, they have squandered so many opportunities away in which they could have brought the government virtually to its knees on its legislative agenda. That could have been very clearly done. So then one has to ask the question why. Why did they not do it? Is it because they have foreseen some sort of a media circus and they were enjoying the attention that was being drawn? If in fact that is the case, the New Democrats are wrong in the violation of the signing of that agreement. Then, Madam Speaker, for the media attention that is being derived out of this particular issue, it is not worth the violation of an agreement which the parties of this Chamber actually signed. That saddens me greatly if in fact that is the case. [interjection] Well, time will tell if in fact that is the case, but I do know of a lot of tools that were squandered away. That is what offends me primarily because, as I indicated earlier, the rules of the Chamber and those provisional rules, I believe, in the long term, are in Manitobans' best interest.

* (1520)

As a result of what is going on today, we could be putting those rules in the future in jeopardy, and I do not believe that is in the best interests in the long term for Manitobans. What we need to see is more order inside this Chamber, and, to a certain degree, the provisional rules provided for at least in most part a better allowance for debates and procedures inside this Chamber than the old rules. But at some point in time, and this is where it is going to be very difficult, in order for these provisional rules to become the permanent rules, members of this Chamber have to again sit down and pass. Once you lose the trust, as has been pointed out from members of the New Democrats, it is very difficult, if possible, in order to get it back. So how do you get back the sense of that if I sign a document, that signature is worth something? That is the reason why we had taken it very seriously and why it is that we had taken the position we did last Thursday with respect to the rising of the Chamber.

With those few words, Madam Speaker, I will leave the point of order. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I will be very succinct, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On the same point of order?

Mr. Kowalski: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe your word is as good as a bond. If people believe that the end justifies the means, that would allow people who--police officers who believe someone was guilty to fabricate evidence, to beat people to get statements. If you give your word, the end does not justify the means no matter how righteous your cause is. If you gave your word, you keep it. I think there was a word given in an agreement--[interjection] Okay. So I think people have to be very careful when they do not keep their word, when they figure their cause is right, because everybody believes strongly in something, but their word should come first. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: I thank all honourable members for their input, and I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the Chamber.