* (1700)

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I am announcing today that the subcommittee established to review the operations of the office of the Children's Advocate will meet on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. in Room 255 in order to hear from the Children's Advocate, and I am announcing that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Thursday, May 8, 1997, at 10 in the forenoon in Room 255 in order to consider the 1996 Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.

Madam Speaker: For clarification, the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet from 10 a.m. till 12 noon on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, to hear from the Children's Advocate, Mr. Govereau.

Mr. McCrae: The subcommittee will be hearing presentations, but this day is set aside for the Children's Advocate himself, April 22, ten o'clock, Room 255.

Madam Speaker: Room 255, 10 a.m. to 12 noon.

The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Thursday, May 8, 10 a.m., in Room 255 to consider the 1996 Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.

Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), Bill 200 (The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), who has 14 minutes remaining. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I want to speak on this bill, which is a bill to urge Manitoba to move to the office of an elected Speaker. Now, the office of Speaker has been one of much debate and, indeed, of public debate in Manitoba over the last few months, and I think that is a very unusual situation. It speaks to the urgency and concern with which the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and others have introduced this bill.

It is very unusual for a Speaker to become the object of concern by the general population, and I would suggest it is because many members of this House have lost confidence in the Speaker. For those who watch the House on television or listen to it on the radio, they too I think recognize that things are not as they should be in this House and that one of the reasons for that is indeed the actions over a number of months of this particular Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear that this not personal. This is an issue of how this office has been conducted, and it is an issue that is of concern, I think, to all members of this House. Every member of this House has an interest and a concern and indeed the right to ensure that their rights of speaking are protected, and it is the role of the Speaker to protect the rights of individual members.

Madam Speaker, we have heard over the last number of weeks since the House reopened many, many speeches on this. Perhaps, in fact, as a result of one of your decisions, more speeches, indeed, than we had anticipated when the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) brought a grievance on this last week. The member for Broadway and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) have spoken very eloquently on this on a number of occasions, and it is in some ways quite difficult to add to the comments which they have made. It is something which I think all members should take an interest in and which they should be very carefully looking at--the office of an elected Speaker.

What is so puzzling about this, Madam Speaker, is that the government itself claims that it is interested in an elected Speaker, that it will, before the next election or after the next election, look at more detailed proposals for the office of an elected Speaker. Well, that suggests a certain kind of dissimulation on the part of this government; either they are interested in it, or they are not interested in it. If they are interested in it, then they should be moving full speed ahead with the co-operation of all the members of this House to looking at the different alternatives for elected Speakers. Indeed, there will be many to look at.

Speakers are elected in the majority of Canadian Parliaments now. The House of Commons has for many years now had an elected Speaker, and those elections are followed with great interest by all members of the House. In British Columbia, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in a number of the Maritime provinces, as well as, in the province of Quebec, there are elected Speakers. This is not unusual. The government is not going out on a limb, and the government, in fact if it were to move to an elected Speaker and to adopt this bill, I believe, would be serving the interests of Manitobans and would be seen visibly to be serving the interests of Manitobans.

Madam Speaker, the hesitation on the part of the government seems to me to be only for pure partisan reasons. I urge the government, as many Speakers have before me, to set aside those partisan reasons, to look at the rights of individual members, and to move to an elected Speaker as so many other Canadian legislatures have done.

Madam Speaker, I have said before in discussions on this the importance of recognizing the reluctance with which a Speaker is brought to their Chair, because that reluctance does indicate the nature of the level of responsibility and the importance that we all attach to having confidence in a Speaker of the House.

I was in fact chastised by the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) for speaking about the 17th Century. It always surprised me that the member for River Heights would want to ignore the experience of Charles I. I think he remarked rather flippantly about heads rolling. He did not want to read anything or hear about anything in the past. It is only the here and now. I had anticipated that the member for River Heights would have been interested in that crowned head which did roll in the 17th Century, because I believe that he did have quite a considerable interest in the history of the Catholic Church, and, of course, that monarch lost his head because, in part, of his religion. So I was disturbed by the member's flippant reference to such discussions of history, but then I thought, well, part of a government which, of course, is abandoning the teaching of history, not only British history but especially Canadian history.

* (1710)

This is a government which, by the fall of this year, will be leaving it up to individual school divisions across Manitoba whether or not Canadian history is taught, required at the senior level. To me, that sets us apart from Alberta, sets it apart from British Columbia, from Saskatchewan. If we look at all of the western provinces where Canadian studies are often required for four and five years and where history and Canadian studies are certainly taught at the Grade 12 level, Manitoba is going to be an anomaly. But then, when we have members like the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) who wants to speak so disparagingly of the history of parliament, then I think perhaps we can see the origin of some of these members who take such a flippant and uncaring attitude to the teaching of the past.

I must say, Madam Speaker, that so often many of the letters I get about the government's decision to drop Canadian history from its requirements are from new Canadians, from people who will find no other way for their young people to learn the history of this country, and that is very serious. In fact, I have often challenged the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) to produce one letter, one speech, one telephone call, one Manitoban, one veterans association, one museum, one archives, one senior society which has asked for or which supports this loss of Canadian history at the senior level. So far, not to my surprise, the minister has been unable to produce one.

But I digress, Madam Speaker. We were discussing the history of parliament and the importance of an elected Speaker in the history of parliament. That is because I think a Speaker must have the confidence of the House. They must have courage in order to do that, and the Speakers of the 17th and 18th Century certainly had that courage as they entered the presence of unpredictable and powerful monarchs. Our Speakers do not face that kind of autocracy, but they do face another kind of autocracy in this House. They do face the government which rules in a very authoritarian manner, which is unprepared, I believe, to look at the rights of all members of this House, and which, I believe, is not serving this House well by not taking into account and not moving with full speed to an elected Speaker.

The confidence of the House is very important not just for the maintenance of discipline in the House, and perhaps, in my view, we saw some of the breakdown of that today, government members ignoring the Speaker while she is on her feet. That is not right, and it is an indication of the lack of respect that has developed in this House and particularly on the government side as well as on this side for the influence and presence of the Speaker. Why has it come to this stage? Well, I would say, speaking from this side of the House, that there have been three decisions which have been significant in the loss of our confidence in the Speaker. The first of those, of course, is the judgment on racism, the argument that "racism" as a word cannot be used in this House. That is absolutely and fundamentally wrong, and every member I think on this side of the House has certainly continued to use the word "racism."

The House is not a tea party. The House is not a place for manuals of decorum in the sense of tea-party decorum. The House is a place of debate, a fierce and argumentative debate, and so it should be. The word "racism," the concept of racism must be named. It has to be named in Manitoba as it is throughout the rest of the world. [interjection] Well, the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) wants to say in an appropriate fashion. There is one word to describe what many of my constituents face on a daily basis and that word must continue to be used in this House, and I believe that the Speaker was very ill advised, in fact, absolutely wrong, to try to attempt to forbid the use of that word.

The second error, I think, which is significant, was the way in which the last hours of the Manitoba Telephone System bill were dealt with. Never will I forget a Speaker who in that last day turned her back, literally physically, on the opposition, who did not respond to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) raising a point of personal privilege. Nothing could be more poignant, nothing could be more striking than that physical demonstration of a turning of her back on the members of the opposition. That was not right. It had no place in this House, and I believe that it was wrong and was one of the major features in the lack of confidence that we continue to have on this side of the House.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, most recently the private member's resolution that was put forward to discuss the issue of an elected Speaker in this House was, I believe, very ill-advisedly ruled out of order by the Speaker. I do not know what kind of advice was received on that, but it did not seem to me to accord with the responsibility of the Speaker to preserve the rights of every member of this House in private members' hour. That was an important hour. It is important for the members of the opposition, as well as for all members of the House, including the government, and it set a very unfortunate and, I think, a precedent which we certainly reject.

So those three issues, I suggest, are keys to our urging of the government for an elected Speaker. It is not a new idea, and I think the support is there by most Manitobans for an idea like this. It is one, I think, which comes from their reflections upon the practices of a continuingly and perhaps increasingly authoritarian government. They believe that it might, indeed, be some check on that.

I want to draw the attention of the members of the House to the Saskatchewan experience. Saskatchewan is one of the more recent provinces which has moved to an elected Speaker, and I believe has had great success with this. I particularly want to draw the attention of members of the House to the role that the Saskatchewan Speaker has taken upon himself. He has taken upon himself the role of educating the people of Saskatchewan, not just children in the schools, but adults in community centres and in church basements, educating them about parliament.

Increasingly, as we go to 300 channels and we are inundated with American television, a different practice, a different legal system, so many people seem to assume that those are the principles and practices of Canada and they are not. We have a very different tradition, and I believe that all members of this House believe that there is a very proud tradition, but it is one which is increasingly difficult to get across in the sense of public education. Particularly, of course, as we have a government which is about to leave a vacuum in the study of Canadian history and in Canadian studies in Manitoba schools, then I think the role of the Speaker in taking on that public education role would be most important and very appropriate for Manitoba and would perform a very significant public service.

So, with that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks and urge the government to take very seriously and perhaps even urgently our bill for the election of a Speaker in Manitoba.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to this private member's bill. The first thing I want to put forward is that as my amendment in the first matter of privilege that came before this session called for an elected Speaker, we, of course, are in favour of the concept. I think we have heard insinuated, if not directly from government benches, that the concept of an elected Speaker is something the government is not totally against, but they have spoken about now is not the time to do it.

So, if this bill goes to committee, what we will be doing from our caucus is bringing forward an amendment to make this bill effective upon the first session after the next election. We call on the government to support that amendment, because with that it puts this matter to rest for now. It is admitting that the concept of an elected Speaker is something that can be welcomed by all members of the House. As the government House leader said, even when he spoke in favour of the concept, now during the time of dissension is not the time to do it. Let us be practical. The bill will not pass unless we have government support. It will never get to committee. So there is a possibility if all members have spoken out in favour of the concept of an elected Speaker, and I think all members would find some merit in it, it is just a matter of timing.

* (1720)

I would challenge the government members to allow this bill to get to committee and amend it so that it comes into force immediately after the next election. In that way, they could support the concept without any admittance to the fact that it was forced, that it is any reflection on the present Speaker, but support the concept. I challenge the government members to rise and speak in favour of this bill going to committee so it could be amended, and I hope that they will do this.

As far as the idea of the elected Speaker and having the support of all members, I know in recent developments in Alberta the newly elected Speaker, Ken Kowalski, who is absolutely no relation whatsoever--he is a Conservative, I am a Liberal--we know that in the recent election that he has already demonstrated his independence from the Premier and, yes, we may see that in an elected Speaker.

It is not a cure-all to have an elected Speaker. We will be looking at the qualities that person will bring to the House, but they will have the support, and that is why at the beginning of the session I brought forward the amendment to the matter of privilege motion that we have an elected Speaker, copied off the B.C. experience, because whichever Speaker we have should have the support of the members of this Chamber so it could be done effectively.

On a number of occasions, I have spoken and I have supported the Speaker, and I have also, on occasion, disagreed with the rulings of the Speaker. I could say that as late as the latest Question Periods I see the Speaker, because of the fire of this session, just like a metal that has been fired, has become stronger and more valuable, and I believe the Speaker is becoming a better Speaker as a result of that.

During Question Period, I believe that we see fairness both in the asking of questions and in the answering of questions, but to have an elected Speaker would be a benefit to this Chamber. My brief comment is, I would like to see that the government members allow this bill go to committee so that it could be amended, so it comes effective immediately after the next election.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): My light seems to be flashing. All right, there it is. [interjection] No, but it was flashing in a very excited kind of way, and I was just worried about it, you know. Thank you, my lights are on, Madam Speaker. [interjection] There is someone home, that is right, exactly.

I rise to support this motion by my honourable colleague from Thompson. I think that this is a very important bill before the House. It would be very nice if the sentiments of the member from The Maples were sufficient to move us forward, and in the absence of the kind of events that we unfortunately saw in the last session and have seen a couple of times in this session, his sentiments would probably move us forward. We could all agree that following some period of time we would have an elected Speaker.

But the difficulty is we have two years or so, perhaps 18 months, not likely less but potentially less, before we would get to the point where this legislation would come into effect if we followed the advice of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), and we might reasonably ask, why an election, why not the rise of a session, why not immediately? Why not--I mean, if an elected Speaker is a good thing, Madam Speaker, why is it a good thing to wait for a long period of time for that to take place?

The people of Ontario just witnessed a situation which was not terribly dissimilar to the situation that we had in this House last fall. We had legislation that was massively unpopular. Some 80 percent of rural Manitobans and 67 percent of Manitobans overall opposed the government's legislation to privatize MTS. In Ontario, some 80 percent of Torontonians opposed the massive centralization of power in the hands of a small council to govern three million people. They made that very clear in a referendum or a plebiscite organized by the municipalities themselves, with a very high turnout. Yet the government persisted in massively unpopular legislation.

What did their elected Speaker do? Madam Speaker, he showed tolerance, he showed discretion. He refused the demands of government that the rules be bent and broken and suspended and moved and changed to pass this legislation, and he essentially presided over a very difficult debate that went 24 hours a day for I believe 10 days to dispose in an orderly fashion of all of the 11,000 amendments that were proposed by the opposition in Ontario, chiefly the New Democratic Party opposition.

What happened here last fall? Well, this party put forward some 35 amendments, not 11,000, and there was apparently no will to even debate 35 serious, substantive amendments. Not one of those amendments was simply cosmetic, all of them were substantive. Yet this House was prevented from debating those substantive amendments.

Madam Speaker, you by your actions rescued the government from a nonexistent crisis. You put in place rules which are not required by any reasonable interpretation of our then provisional rules. Even if you had done that and then moved in some kind of reasonably tolerant way to bring your imposed closure, you did not need to do what you then proceeded to do, which was to cut off the most precious right of members, and that is the right of privilege to speak on a Matter of Privilege.

So I would say to the honourable member for The Maples, we are talking about two different issues here but, unfortunately, because of the conduct of this House under this Speaker, those two issues have come together and they cannot be separated, in our view. I will say again as we have said before, the current Speaker does not enjoy the confidence of this side of the House. It is not a question of not enjoying the confidence just when we disagree. When you do not enjoy the confidence of the House, it is a very serious and persistent problem, and it cannot be remedied by being a little more tolerant for a few days.

The difficulty is that last week we saw again the kind of intolerance and lack of discretion which got us into very serious difficulties last fall in which a motion that was properly on the Order Paper had been ruled able to be drawn for a private member's resolution which spoke to a matter that had not been disposed of. Witness the fact that we are now after that period of time now debating this bill. It had not been disposed of at all. Yet it was ruled out of order.

* (1730)

I think that the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and other members opposite will probably find that there are a number of resolutions in previous session which, if the same stringent and narrow criteria had been applied, would also have been found out of order, but Speakers were wise enough not to do that, because they recognized that private members' hour is the only time that backbenchers on the government side and opposition members have to put things before the House for debate and discussion which they feel are important. So that privilege of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) was essentially abrogated by a Speaker who should have been wise enough, in our view, not even to be in the Chair for the debate of that motion, let alone not to rule it out of order if she insisted on being in the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I think it is unfortunate, but we have to deal with this act now, and waiting for two or one and a half years is not good enough. I think we have seen that elected Speakers across the country have provided judgment and wisdom and have retained the confidence of the House. There have been, so far as I know, no crises in legislative assemblies or the Parliament of Canada of a procedural nature since we elected Speakers in those bodies.

In fact, as the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) pointed out, the honourable Speaker for Saskatchewan is using that office in a very wise and proactive way to educate adults and children, young people in particular, in Saskatchewan about the nature of the parliamentary tradition in Canada, about the role of the Speaker, about the privileges and responsibilities of members on both sides of the House. I cannot think of a more valuable thing to be doing at a time when all of our roles are held in somewhat low repute by far too many of our citizens.

So I think, Madam Speaker, that if you truly had the interest of your office at heart you would have heeded the several opportunities that you have had to put this office up for election, and this Legislature would be a stronger, I think, a wiser place if it had chosen you on an elected ballot basis or chosen someone else on an elected ballot basis because the whole incentive then of the elected person would be to act in such a way as to retain the trust and confidence of the House, having earned it by secret ballot. There is a much greater incentive to retain it on the same basis.

Madam Speaker, I think if we look at the question of an elected Speaker, we have to not just think about the mechanics of election, but we have to think about what the office as it is now held has done to this House.

Madam Speaker, I do not think you can understand, though I know you were very stressed and very distressed by the events of last fall, the feeling that I had of the quiet march of boots that said this place is no longer free, that at the discretion, not of the House as a whole, but of the Speaker, the most vital rights of mine, my colleagues' and indeed other members' could be restrained and eliminated for a period of days by a Speaker operating quite outside any rules and precedents that we have ever had before.

I do not think you can understand the chill that went through this side of the House when we recognized that though we would likely lose the vote, we were not even going to be allowed the dignity of opposition. We are not naive. We know that a determined government using the rules will ultimately achieve its purpose. We always hope, as the government hoped when it was in opposition, to amend and to change legislation in a progressive and a hopeful way. All oppositions hope that, but all oppositions also know that at the end of the day a determined government will have its way using our rules.

You did not need to help them do that, and I do not believe an elected Speaker would have done so, Madam Speaker. I believe an elected Speaker would have said, sort it out for yourselves, folks. You have rules, use them. You have closure, use it. You have got speed-up, use it. You have got extending the session, use it. You do not need me to solve this problem. You have got rules, use them. But this Speaker did not do that and the chill that went through the House when those rights were suspended, when rules were invented to go into a vacuum that did not exist, I do not think you yet understand the degree of harm that you did to the House and to the office.

So I do not think it is simply a matter, with all due respect to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that we can all agree as goodhearted folk that, at the end of the sitting of this Legislature, at the call of an election, then when the new House convenes we will elect a Speaker. That is, of course, something that should happen, but it should happen before that too. It should happen this session. It should happen now so that the people of Manitoba would begin to have the kind of president of their Assembly, presiding officer of their Assembly that would take the proactive steps taken by the House of Commons Speaker to issue instructional, educational materials, would have the opportunity to do what the Speaker in Saskatchewan is doing, would have the confidence of the House as the Conservative Speaker in the Conservative government of Ontario's legislative assembly has, who presided with absolute impartiality over a very difficult and very fractious debate, did not break the rules, did not feel the need to invent rules, simply said, well, we have procedures, we will follow them and the debate will ultimately end.

Madam Speaker, I call on all members of the House to recognize that we have a problem here. The problem is not going to go away by simply saying, well, perhaps by the next election we will talk about it. The problem is going to persist and it has persisted, not just last November, not just when "racist" policies was ruled an unacceptable term in this House. It was underscored even as late as last week when a private members' hour motion resolution was deemed to be out of order on some very weak grounds indeed.

So I call on all members on both sides of the House to recognize that we need to repair the trust and confidence in the procedures governing this House and to do that we need to elect a Speaker.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak to this, but I have come to the point where I have been listening to the debate and it has finally gotten to me a little bit. The smoke screen is being putting up here. We are not debating the issue of an elected Speaker. We are not debating the issue of a secret ballot. We are reflecting on the Chair and that offends me, because I do not think we should be dealing with reflection on you as our Speaker but on the issue before us, and that is the election of a Speaker.

Whether we discuss the issue now or in the future, I think it is an important debate. But let us look at what we do within Manitoba. Part of what I am looking at when I see this bill, it says, we should use until such time as we have our own rules the rules of the House of Parliament. Well, Madam Speaker, I do not think that would be right. I think before we move to an elected Speaker we should discuss and debate the issue but debate the issue around what it is, the secret ballot, around what it is, the elected Speaker, and around what the rules would be of that elected Speaker.

Throughout the country we look at the elected Speakers and the members are often referring to those Speakers. They refer to Speaker Hagel, they have referred to the past speaker from Alberta. These Speakers are not challenged within their rulings. When they make a ruling there is no challenge of the Chair. Those rulings are the ruling, and there is no challenge to that ruling.

So, before we look at the concept of an elected Speaker, we have to make sure we have in place the rules that flow with it. I think the proper place to have the discussion on this matter would be at a Rules committee, or we could get together and strike a committee as we did on the past rules even though they fell apart. We came pretty close. We came pretty close in the long run to coming together, and I think that is closer than we have come in this House in a long time.

* (1740)

Madam Speaker, I think it is time we get together as members of this Legislature and possibly discuss this issue and look at it. We are all here within the room. The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), I remember just the last session when he was speaking against the issue of secret ballots. Strongly he opposed secret ballots when it came to certification within his unions, but it is funny he supports a secret ballot here. I would like to hear the concepts around--[interjection] But I would like to hear the concepts around--[interjection] But explain to me the reasons why one secret ballot is okay and the other is not.

An Honourable Member: I did not even say that.

Mr. Laurendeau: I thought it was you. I might be mistaken. It might not have been the member for Crescentwood, but I will research it, Madam Speaker. It might have been the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), but I will research it. I know it was from that area. All I am saying is it was somebody over there, because they voted against the bill.

Madam Speaker, it is not the concept of elected Speaker. I think we have got it across the country. The elected Speaker is working. If we are going to have an elected Speaker, let us look at how we establish that. We are going about it the wrong way right now. Right now we are using this as a hammer and a smoke screen. Let us get down to business and let us deal with the issue of an elected Speaker for the future, but let us deal with it in a rational fashion. I do not believe this is the forum to be doing it in, because I do not think we are gaining any points and we are not getting any closer on the matter.

Madam Speaker, I would like to see us--and if we are going to debate here, bring forward the issues on why it is good. Bring forward the rules that would go with it, so we can hear those rules and the reasons why. [interjection] It works in British Columbia. It worked in Alberta.

Mr. Ashton: It worked in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Laurendeau: That is correct.

Mr. Ashton: It worked in Ontario. It worked in Quebec.

Mr. Laurendeau: The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is correct. It has worked throughout the country, but they had established rules prior to putting in place an elected Speaker.

Mr. Ashton: You have to pass the bill first, then you pass the amendments.

Mr. Laurendeau: Well, this is where I disagree with the honourable member. He says pass the bill first and then make the amendments. Madam Speaker, I do not believe in making sausage backwards, and that is what we would end up with.

Mr. Ashton: Marcel, you have to do it by legislation.

Mr. Laurendeau: We can do it by legislation, Madam Speaker, by putting forward the rules first. That is all I am saying. There is no reason--[interjection] We put the rules together last time without bringing the Rules committee together until such time as we would hammer a deal. Why not pool together as what we are in this House, work out a system that works, bring it to the Rules committee once we have struck a deal, and after that we could come back in the House and debate the matter. But this is wrong. This is the wrong forum and the wrong way to do it. If we are going to do it right, let us get together and work together to correct whatever the inequities are within the Chamber. Thank you.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments on Bill 200, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, that was tabled in this Legislature by my colleague the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

Madam Speaker, I want to talk a few minutes about the efforts that the member for Thompson has taken to ensure that this House operates in a clear and democratic fashion and that the office of the Speaker is essentially operated as an impartial and neutral office to oversee the affairs and conduct of this particular Legislative Assembly and, hopefully, future Legislative Assemblies. The member for Thompson, I know, has over a period of time worked very, very diligently. We see it time in and time out in this Legislature where he stands up either on points of order, or he is able to stand up and represent his constituents, where he quite clearly believes very deeply in the democratic process of this Legislative Assembly and has taken steps here again today to instill even further the principles of a democratic institution and, by that, I mean the office of the Speaker.

I want to thank the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for his efforts in bringing forward this bill and for his efforts in the past in the debates we have had, whether it be on MTS or on other issues, where he has raised time and again the rules of the parliamentary process, the traditions of this Legislative Assembly and other assemblies, including the Parliament of Canada, in the operation and conduct of the affairs of governments throughout Canada.

Madam Speaker, this is not a matter to be taken lightly. There was considerable pressure on the member for Thompson when he, as our House leader, was having discussions with this government during the MTS debate last fall, and I watched our member for Thompson very clearly work within the rules, the existing rules of this Legislative Assembly. He did not take steps or look for ways to get around the rules, he worked within the rules that were established practice of this Assembly. He believes very strongly in those rules, as do I.

Madam Speaker, I am one of 57 MLAs in this Legislative Assembly. I am elected by the 13,000 electorate that are in the constituency of Transcona. They expect me to come here to represent their interests on matters that affect them.

Madam Speaker, last fall, when the MTS bill was being debated in this Legislative Assembly, Bill 67, the constituents of Transcona, through a survey that I had done, had given me a very clear message, 99.9 percent of the constituents of my community who responded, and I brought those surveys to this House, and I showed members of this Legislative Assembly what the people of Transcona were saying. They did not want their MTS sold. This government and the Speaker of the day told me that I could not represent the interests of my constituents who had given me a clear message: Do not sell MTS. Yet, I was denied the right as one of 57 equal people in this Legislative Assembly to represent the wishes of my constituents on third reading of Bill 67. You denied me through the office of Speaker and the utilization of Speaker of my right to represent my constituents' interests.

Madam Speaker, there is only person after an election that is chosen to be Speaker. I have watched now through two elections where the Premier of the day, the Premier having been elected of the government, and the Leader of the Opposition go to the Chair of the member who has been chosen to be Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. I have watched on two occasions now, having been a member of this Assembly, watched that person dragged from the chair as the tradition would have and escorted through the centre of this Assembly to the Chair of Speaker. I expect when that action happens that the Speaker will act in an impartial and neutral way so that I can represent the wishes of my constituents, and that is what I expect from my Speaker when I come to this Chamber.

There is an honour and a tradition of any Speaker going into the Chair to act in that neutral and impartial way and to put aside their political beliefs, as strongly as they may be held, so that other members, the other 56 members of this Assembly, can represent the wishes of their constituents and get on with the business affairs of this House. I do not expect to have any special treatment, but I do expect to be treated fairly, and that is something that did not happen during the debate on Bill 67 last November when this government utilized the office of the Speaker, hid behind the skirts of the Speaker to ram through Bill 67. That was an impartial and a politically motivated act, and I will never forget that as long as I live.

I want my Speaker to be a nonpartisan individual. I expect that when I come to this Legislative Assembly. I do not expect when I stand up in this House to speak, because I did not know when I stood up to speak today whether my microphone would be on, when I stand up to speak and I am the only member on my feet at that time, I want my microphone to be on to be recognized to represent my constituents. I do not want to have to guess every day that I come here, is the Speaker going to recognize me today or not? I expect to have that opportunity to represent my constituents as I would expect the opportunity for each and every other of the 56 members of this Assembly to have that opportunity. That did not happen on November 27 and 28 of 1996. The microphones at this Assembly were turned off. I and my colleagues in this House were denied the opportunity to represent the people of our constituencies, the people that sent us to this place.

I do not know how members opposite feel, but I get paid and I am compensated very adequately for coming to this building to represent their interests, and I expect to do the job to the best of my ability, and they expect me to do the job to the best of my ability. But when you turn off my microphone, utilizing the office of the Speaker to do that, you have denied me the right to represent my constituents and to earn the money and to do the job that I am paid to come here to do.

* (1750)

The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the government say that you are interested in electing a Speaker but only if it is at your convenience. Not now, sometime in the future, you will have an elected Speaker. That is what you say. You said you believe in electing a Speaker. Well, here we have Bill 200 before us here today that has been tabled and in second reading, brought forward by my honourable colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that will give the government the opportunity to go forward and debate this bill and to let this bill move into committee to give the public the opportunity to come out and comment on this bill.

If you find there are parts of this bill that maybe do not meet your needs, maybe it needs to be amended, let it go to committee and hear the public, and let them have their say on what they think about this piece of legislation, because I can assure you the comments that I got back from my constituents were we want an elected Speaker of this Assembly. If you judge whatever weight you want to put on the surveys that were done in the media in the province here, they too showed that the public of Manitoba very much wants to have an elected Speaker.

I know I have had the opportunity to talk to my colleague the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) as one of many members on this side who surveyed their constituents, and I believe, Madam Speaker, that 90 percent of the people of Selkirk that responded to that survey want an elected Speaker. Now if that does not speak clearly to the government opposite about electing a Speaker, I do not know what does.

An Honourable Member: Look at this tally here. Look at this.

Mr. Reid: There is a survey that was done, and I talked a few moments ago about a survey, and I thank my colleague the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). The survey that was done I believe was in the Winnipeg Sun in March of this year. The question was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly should be elected by MLAs, not appointed. Of the call-ins that were made to that line, 90 percent agreed with electing a Speaker--90 percent of the people. It is very, very clear that it is the will of the people that want this.

But judging by the arrogance of this particular government and going back to the legislation that they tabled in this Assembly last fall, you want to consolidate power. You consolidate power, and we are seeing it again in Bill 17 that you brought forward here again this session, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) tabled here, The Retail Business Holiday Closing Amendment Act.

You are consolidating power again into the hands of the minister just like you did on Bill 17 last time, The Essential Services Act; just like you did in The Labour Relations Amendment Act, Bill 26, last session; just like you did in Bill 73, The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act last session, and other bills dealing with health care. You consolidated power, power into the hands of the ministers and the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

You do not want to give the opportunity for members in opposition the ability to represent their constituents because they may be somewhat critical of some of the decisions that you make. But that is my role as an opposition member to come here and to be constructively critical of the operations of government and to provide suggestions to members in government to allow them to effectively carry out their duties and responsibilities. I have tried to carry out that mandate to the best of my ability. I have provided suggestions to the government which you have chosen to ignore. That is your right and your responsibility if you choose to do that, but I have tried to be constructive in the criticisms that I have brought forward.

Madam Speaker, if we had seen the former Speaker of this Legislative Assembly take the actions that you had taken last November 27 and 28 when we were in debate in this Legislative Assembly during the Meech Lake constitutional debate, where would this country have been today if you had denied that right? I believe we would have been into constitutional gridlock in this country because you would have broken the rules of this Assembly affecting the Constitution of Canada. Yet that Speaker had the intestinal fortitude to make the decision he did to allow the Legislative Assembly to determine its own fate and its own future without imposing the will of the office of Speaker, and I think that was the right decision. It is still the right decision to allow the members of this Assembly, duly elected by their constituents, to make those decisions.

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) talk about this particular bill, and he says that he does not want to send it to committee. He does not want to give the public the opportunity to come out and add comment to this particular piece of legislation because he says you should not amend it when you go to committee. Well, the question I have from his comments then is: If you do not want to amend it when it goes to committee, then why did you bring in 36 amendments on Bill 67, the MTS bill, in committee?

If that bill was that bad that you had to bring in 36 amendments, then why did you not withdraw the bill? Obviously, your arguments are weak. You should allow this bill, I believe, to go to committee to give the public the opportunity to speak on this very important matter, because I can assure you the public will tell you that we should have an elected Speaker of this Legislative Assembly as we have in many, many other provinces of Canada, including the Parliament of Canada.

Now, I listened to the arguments of the member for St. Norbert as well when he said he did not understand the clause dealing with the rules because he says we do not have any rules and what this Bill 200 proposes is to follow the provisions of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons respecting the election of Speaker. Well, there is a tradition because they have had elected Speakers for some time in the Parliament of Canada, and we can follow those rules for the election of a Speaker. It is not a complicated matter.

An Honourable Member: All it takes is the will.

Mr. Reid: I think that all it takes--as the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) suggests--is the political will on the part of the government to come forward with this particular bill to allow it to go and complete second reading. I know members opposite will probably continue to stand this piece of legislation and not want to debate it, to try and drag it out to the end of the session and never add perhaps another word on this bill, as I saw today when the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) was prevented from speaking. He was asked to sit down and have it stand in his name. Now I expect there will not be another opportunity for that member to stand up and add his comments on this, that members of the government will be stymied or muzzled from adding their comments on Bill 200 to allow this debate to conclude, to go to committee to allow for public hearings.

Madam Speaker, with those words, I hope that this government will recognize the error of their ways, that they have in a sense taken away the honour and the tradition of the office of Speaker by utilizing the office of Speaker for their dirty deeds in the passage of Bill 67 last November. I think it is improper to use the office of Speaker, and if you want to restore some credibility to the office of Speaker, you have the opportunity here today to do the honourable thing, to allow this Bill 200 to go through to public hearings and allow the public to have their say, pass Bill 200 and then have an election for office of Speaker if you really believe it is necessary to have a Speaker elected.

Madam Speaker, with those few words I will give members of the government the opportunity to stand up and add comment on Bill 200, and perhaps then we can pass this bill and send it through to committee.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to put a few words on the record on Bill 200, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, and it basically brings in a bill which provides for an elected Speaker by secret ballot.

This is a timely bill, a bill that is supported by our side of the House, by the independent members of the third party and I am sure by most of the members who sit on that side. What we ask is for them to look larger than the political party and do what is the right thing, do what the people of Manitoba want, do what the members of this Legislature want and pass on this bill to committee so that it can be reviewed by the public and have an opportunity to be amended, if needed, and then to ultimately be given final approval and to proceed with the will of Manitobans.

As we have seen from petitions, from the survey, from the newspaper, the majority of Manitobans, over 90 percent, are in agreement for the process to be elected. Madam Speaker, the time is now for the government to move on this. The opportunity is there for them to make the difference. The opportunity is there for them to show leadership and say, yes, this is a good bill brought forward by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and it meets the needs of Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., when this matter is again before the House, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), who will have 13 minutes remaining; and the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), who will have 14 minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).