On November 22, 1996, I raised a point of order in this House, the text of which I will now reiterate. November 22, 1996, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was just--this is to you, Madam Speaker; I am addressing you--over on this side of the Legislative Assembly and threatened the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) in the following words: "Come outside and say that to my face, and I will kick your lights out, Timmy." Furthermore, later on, I say, "I would like to complete my comments, Madam Speaker. The other side of the House made it impossible. I wanted to say that the member for Crescentwood is hard of hearing and fortunately did not hear the Premier's threats of violence and thuggery, but I did. I am insulted, and I think he should retract his words. This is a government that prides itself on its antiviolence programs," and the Premier's comments are violent and ugly. "I am ashamed of this Premier."

Madam Speaker, despite the passage of one year, two legislative sessions, and 76 sitting days, you have not ruled on this point of order. In fact, it would seem that you have consciously, even deliberately chosen not to rule on my point of order, and therefore I think you have diminished my status as an honourable member of this House. I have often heard you say that in this House we are all honourable members, but it does seem to me that some members are regarded as more honourable than others.

I would suggest that in view of the seriousness of my point of order, you have no discretion, that you absolutely must rule on this point of order for this matter concerns a threat of violence, uttered not simply by one member of the Legislative Assembly to another member of the Legislative Assembly but by the Premier of this province to a member of the opposition. This, as I said earlier, is a province that prides itself on zero tolerance of violence, and yet the Premier, who should be a role model to all Manitobans, utters threats of violence. This Premier is often touted as the elder statesman of Canada and yet he has been allowed with impunity to utter threats of violence in this Legislative Assembly.

Madam Speaker, I understand that a matter of privilege must be raised at the first possible opportunity, and I would argue that in this particular situation that test is not applicable, as the very foundation of my argument is that you have no intention of ruling on this matter. I reiterate that one year and two sessions have elapsed since I first raised the point of order and brought to your attention the Premier's declared intention that he would kick out the lights of the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) if only that member would go out in the hallway with the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and I am certainly glad that the member chose not to.

If you had intended to rule, Madam Speaker, on this matter during this session, the logical time would have been Friday. Since you did not do so, I am raising a matter of privilege today, and I regret that you have not given this serious matter the priority that I think it deserves, that you have given it absolutely no attention. It is as if the Premier can roam the periphery of this Legislative Assembly issuing threats against members without being accountable for his words.

I understand, Madam Speaker, that the second test for a matter of privilege is that the member present a prima facie case. With this in mind, I want to recall the events of November 22, the ones that led to my point of order. The Premier, as I have indicated, was moving about the Legislative Chamber in what I am calling the periphery. I suppose you might also call it the circumference of the building. The Premier's very posture struck me as being cocky and combative, but perhaps that is not fair and maybe I should not say that, but that certainly was my impression. That evening the Premier stopped immediately behind my chair--right there--and in response to something said by the member for Crescentwood, I think the member for Crescentwood--I heard a member wants to know what the member for Crescentwood said--I think--but I did not hear--the member for Crescentwood said something about the Premier hiding behind the skirts of the Speaker, and it was in response to this that the Premier said: come outside and I will kick your lights out, Timmy.

* (1335)

Madam Speaker, the Premier's words were heard by other members of the Legislative Assembly, by my colleague from Flin Flon and by my colleague from St. James. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) joined in the general advice to you that day, and he pointed out the following. I am quoting from the member for Flin Flon, November 22, 1996. The member for Flin Flon: Madam Speaker, on a new point of order--although it relates to the other point of order as well--it is not just a matter of catcalling back and forth. We are talking about the Premier coming on this side and not only saying the things--and then there is a break at which point you speak. Then the member for Flin Flon continues: "Totally apart from verifying what the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) said, I also heard the Premier (Mr. Filmon) call my honourable friend from Dauphin a name that I will not repeat in this House, Madam Speaker. I do not think this is acceptable behaviour."

Madam Speaker, I heard the name that the member for Flin Flon did not repeat, would not repeat in the House, and I repeat it today for everybody to hear. The Premier called the member for Dauphin an asshole.

An Honourable Member: Shame.

Ms. McGifford: Shame, for sure.

Madam Speaker, my personal reaction that night, as a person who has worked both inside and outside this Legislature on violence issues, was to see the obvious. How can we have a province free from violence when the Premier of this province, the so-called elder statesman of Canada, utters physical threats inside the Legislative Chamber? If any point of order deserves swift and immediate ruling, it should be the one that I raised that evening. The Premier's threats were an affront not only to me but to all members of this Legislative Chamber, though some members do not seem to understand this. I gather from the general murmurs and whatnot I am catching over here, the Premier's threats that evening were an insult to all members of the Legislative Chamber and, indeed, to all Manitobans and to the democratic process itself. Intimidation and threats simply should not be countenanced in this House.

Madam Speaker, on November 22, 1996, you took my point of order under advisement, and the next day the Premier admitted his folly in the Free Press. Here I quote from Friday, November 22. The Premier says: In a fit of anger, I said something I regret saying. That is a quotation from the Premier. You must have known that the Premier publicly and quite willingly cemented my point of order and yet you chose not to rule.

I want to point out that the Premier's breach is a serious one according to the rules of Parliament. Here I want to quote from Maingot on matters of privilege. I believe this gentleman is regarded as an expert on Canadian parliamentary privilege. Anyway, I would like to quote from him: Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing or insulting of any member on the floor of the House or while he is coming or going to or from the House or an account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament is a violation of the rights of Parliament. Any form of intimidation of the member for or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt. That is a quotation from Maingot, who is an expert on Canadian parliamentary privilege.

Madam Speaker, I also want to quote from Beauchesne, who writes: It is generally accepted that any threat or attempts to influence the vote or actions of a member is a breach of privilege.

This type of incident, threats of physical violence and intimidation is the most serious complaint one member can raise against another and yet, Madam Speaker, you refused to rule on this extremely grave and serious matter. You are often quick to rule on points of order which have none of the violent, ugly content inherent in the Premier's, the one I raised concerning the Premier. You are quick to rule on points of order that have nothing to do with violence and/or intimidation. For example, on June 25, 1997, you were, I am sure, aware that the NDP caucus had filed a matter of urgent public importance, yet you chose to preempt it and instead you chose to present a controversial ruling concerning the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Of course, in this instance the Premier was the person who had been insulted by the member for Thompson because the member for Thompson had suggested to the Premier, and here I quote: that he was "lining the pockets of Bay Street brokers and his political friends." You certainly gave this matter quick attention. You demanded that the member for Thompson retract his words and the member challenged your ruling.

* (1340)

On this very day, the Leader of the Opposition brought up my point of order. I want to quote from the Leader of the Opposition's speech in this House on June 25, 1997. The Leader of the Opposition said: "Where is the ruling on the Premier on a very simple matter of making a statement about punching out the lights of the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale)--kicking out the lights--a point that he has never apologized for in this House. He has done it in the Free Press. He has never done it in this Chamber." Then, further on in his speech, the Leader of the Opposition said: "Somebody called the First Minister threatens to punch out the lights or kick out the lights of another member of this Chamber, the First Minister admits it in the newspaper, he apologizes in the newspaper, and the Speaker is too incompetent or too lacking in a backbone to give us a ruling within a couple of days of the session starting."

Now 76 days later, Madam Speaker, we still do not have a ruling on the point of order that I raised. Again, I want to make the point that apparently the sensibilities of some people are more equal than the sensibilities of other people, and yet you assure us that we are all honourable members in this House.

Madam Speaker, your duty as Speaker is to preserve order in this House and to protect the rights and privileges of all members, though at times, including the time concerning me, I would think you have been derelict in your duty.

Madam Speaker, a strong, clear statement is required now in a matter so grave and so undermining to the principles of parliamentary democracy. There is no room--as I said earlier--for discretion. You simply must rule on my point of order. Furthermore, the arguments that you may not have heard the Premier's words really cut no ice. Not only has the Premier publicly admitted to his words, but if you did not hear them, the matter should have been referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for inquiry.

By failing to rule on this point of order, Madam Speaker, you appear to be treating members unequally and therefore without the respect that all honourable members are promised. You, by failing to rule on my point of order, have belittled my integrity, dismissed my certain knowledge and disregarded my words. By failing to rule in this extremely grave matter, you have clearly communicated to members of the opposition that you have no intentions to protect them from intimidation nor to take their issues seriously.

Madam Speaker, I regret to say that your behaviour in this matter smacks of partiality and conclusion; some would even call it corruption. Quite clearly, your partiality and unwillingness to respect properly my rights and privileges as a member of this House interfere in my ability to perform my responsibilities. Your failure to rule on this point of order is in itself intimidation for it has a chilling effect on opposition points of order, especially when those opposition points of order concern the Premier who appears to be your special pet or favourite MLA and, of course, Speakers should have neither House pets nor play favourites.

Madam Speaker, I regret having to say that your refusal to rule on my point of order amounts to contempt of this House and serves to obstruct this House in the performance of its functions. In short, the intimidation, disrespect and inequality inherent in your failure to respond to my point of order does indeed constitute a prima facie case.

I now move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale),

THAT this House no longer has confidence in the sitting Speaker and that this House censure the Speaker for failing to rule on my November 22, 1996, point of order.

* (1345)

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, of course questions of privilege ought to be, as set out in Beauchesne, extremely rare and ought to be treated very seriously. I believe the issues raised by the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) have in the activities of this House been treated seriously in the previous session. There have been a number of occasions since the difficulties of a year ago about which all honourable members are aware--there have been many expressions between all parties in this House of a willingness to work together to put the concerns of the people of Manitoba ahead of our personal concerns and to do the work of the people of Manitoba. We demonstrated that last spring during the flood of the century. There were numerous times in this House when accommodations were made by our members for opposition members, by opposition members for our members so that they could be involved in their communities helping their constituents and their fellow Manitobans in dealing with the flood of the century. There have been numerous opportunities to show that the spirit in this House is moving in the right direction again and we are getting the work of the people done.

The fact that we are sitting here today, Madam Speaker, dealing with the throne speech and a day or two has been set aside also for further business of this House is another example of the kind of co-operation that can prevail around here when we put the interests of the people of Manitoba ahead of those narrow interests and concerns we might have.

I think the honourable members opposite are having a little trouble putting the past where it belongs and dealing with the issues that we have before us. I think the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has made his position known about the matters raised by the honourable member today, and it seems somewhat gratuitous that this matter should be raised by that honourable member at this particular time when efforts are being made by honourable members on all sides of this House to work co-operatively and to put the interests of the people of Manitoba ahead of our own.

I ask you to view this matter in that particular light and the matter will be disposed of in whatever way it will be disposed of, but nothing the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) does to try to bring back difficulties of the past, Madam Speaker, will alter our determination on this side of the House to continue to put the interests of the people of Manitoba ahead of our own and ahead of all others.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): I would like to make some brief remarks regarding the motion that is before the House.

There are two passages in Beauchesne that I would like to quote. The first is 93. "It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a Member, is breach of privilege." What could be more clear as a threat than the remark "Come outside and say that to my face, and I will kick your lights out, Timmy."?

I think that despicable remark certainly fits with Beauchesne 93, and your inability or unwillingness to provide a ruling on a point of order is also very disappointing to members on this side of the House. It could have been dealt with expeditiously as soon as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) took his seat again. You had numerous opportunities not only to make a ruling after Question Period every day as you normally do, but during the course of the sitting you could have made a ruling and asked the Premier to stand up and apologize, as you frequently do in this Chamber, as you frequently have to do with the Premier and ask him to apologize for remarks that he has made.

I have been here seven years. Every time you have asked him to apologize he has apologized. That would have been the end of it. We would not have had a matter of privilege. We would not have had a motion of censure against you if you had taken that very simple act of bringing in a ruling either after Question Period or during the sitting and asked the Premier to do the right thing and apologize.

* (1350)

As you know, we could not have brought it up again. We would not have brought it up again. The matter would have been over, but as long as you do not bring in a ruling for a whole session and other days as well, this is the result, that it is still festering and it is going to fester until either you bring in a ruling and order the Premier to apologize or the Premier does the right thing and gets up on his feet and apologizes on his own--[interjection] or the Speaker resigns, as one of my honourable colleagues suggests.

I would also like to quote Beauchesne 99. "Direct threats which attempt to influence Members' actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege. They do, however, provide serious problems for the House. They are often made anonymously and it is rarely possible for the House to examine them satisfactorily. The common practice today is to turn the responsibility for investigating them over to the ordinary forces of the law."

I think Beauchesne is suggesting some rather serious implications here and that is that we had a choice and you had a choice that we could either bring it up as a matter of privilege or a point of order, which was done, or it could have been referred to the police force to investigate, and certainly the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would not have wanted that course of action. This is a much less serious way of dealing with it by having a point of order, and yet you chose not even to rule on the point of order. I think you should have at least examined Beauchesne and foreseen the implications of these various precedents and done the right thing. Regretfully, we once again--not for the first time but for several times in a row now--express our lack of faith in your office and your ability to carry out your office as Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I look at the children who have come to view the proceedings today, children from the constituency of my colleague from St. Boniface, and what are we talking about? What are we talking about? Let us get on with governing. Let us get on with talking about important issues and quit talking like little school children about little things. [interjection] If anybody was concerned about violence, would they be here today? Come on, let us get on with it, and let us get on with important issues.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, first in response to the member for The Maples, no school in this province tolerates violence or threats of violence in its schoolyards or in its halls. Violence or the direct threat of violence is not acceptable in any of the schools that you served as a trustee for or in any of the schools that any of us have in our ridings.

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. The matter before us today is simply twofold. The substance of the threats made against me--though I did not personally hear them--have been acknowledged and admitted in the press. They have never been acknowledged and admitted in this House. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) has never apologized to me personally either privately or publicly. The second is the issue of privilege itself, and that has to do with your ruling and your failure to rule.

Madam Speaker, one of the issues of a matter of privilege is whether it is made in a timely fashion. In some ways that criterion has to be seen as one in which we have exercised the greatest of patience. We had many opportunities in which we could have gotten up and asked you why you had not ruled. We deliberately gave you as much time as we thought was possibly reasonable. You had months and months of this House sitting; you had last week. You had many opportunities to make your views known on this matter, this question of order that was raised by my colleague. You have chosen not to do so.

We have been more than patient. It is time to lay this matter to rest, and it is time to get on with the work of this House in a way in which the public has confidence and in a way in which the Premier conducts himself with honour and not having to apologize so frequently. So, Madam Speaker, we await your ruling on this question, and we think it is very important.

* (1355)

Madam Speaker: Given the seriousness of this matter, I am sure that the House would want to debate it at the earliest opportunity.

Therefore, the question before the House is: I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that this House no longer has confidence in the sitting Speaker and this House censure the Speaker for failing to rule on my November 22, 1996, point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I trust that you are calling for a question on that particular motion. If that is the case, I would like to put a few words on the record prior to the vote. [interjection] There will be a question today. Well, I do want to at least get on the record in terms of some of my thoughts with respect to this particular issue.

In the past, both as Chairs, Deputy Speaker, yourself included, points of order are raised on numerous occasions, and to the very best of my knowledge I am not convinced that all of those points of order that have been taken as notice from the Chair or the Speaker have not necessarily been reported back on. That is not necessarily to defend the Premier. I do believe the Premier was wrong, and the Premier should have done what was honourable to this Chamber, stand up and apologize for the remarks. He did that to the media; I see no reason why he could not stand up today and do likewise for the Chamber.

But having said that, I listened to what individuals were saying from the NDP and from the government House leader. When I hear issues such as pet speakers or the Speaker has pet MLAs, I hear about the intimidation. I will not play a game on that particular issue. Speakers in the past, whether it was Myrna Phillips--I believe it was Sharon Carstairs who walked up with the NDP Leader at the time to bring in the Speaker because the Conservatives were upset with the Speaker. When we talk about intimidation, how much more intimidating can you get when you have two or three MLAs visibly walk across the Chamber floor and hold threatening gestures towards the Speaker? All of us--and, again, it is not necessarily to take sides--you always have to put into context what was actually occurring. It does not necessarily justify the actions. I would equally--not only would I like to see the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stand up, Madam Speaker, I would like to see the individuals that walked across the floor, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) to stand up and apologize, because that was not a positive day for parliamentary process.

Madam Speaker, I do believe that given the seriousness of that particular point of order, there is an obligation from the Speaker's Chair to come forward and make some sort of a ruling. In addition to that, I would suggest that maybe it is necessary that we revisit the way in which points of order and matters of privilege are in fact reported to the Chamber. I can recall others where there has not been a report back, or at least to the very best of my knowledge, even in the case of a matter of privilege. Again, because I was not forewarned of this occurring this morning, I do not have the actual incident, but I do know there needs to be more of a reporting back to this Chamber when serious things occur inside this Chamber where there is a need for some sort of recourse.

I am going to sit down on that, but I would like to see and I invite the Premier to stand up, and following the Premier, Madam Speaker, I would also like to see the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), I believe it was the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) also apologize for their behaviour on those ugly days back in November of '96.

* (1400)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the remarks that have been made by some of the members who have spoken today. I want to say that as the government House leader has indicated, we had hoped that by virtue of the actions that we were taking and the endeavours that we were making to try and heal wounds, to try and work with the opposition to plan the session, to invite their participation in a variety of ways and decisions that have to collectively be made by this Chamber, we could put behind us a good deal of the nastiness and the ill will that was felt here about a year ago in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, I know that this is not a time that we should be just simply repeating old arguments and old matters, but because the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has invited the discussion, I think it is important for us to even use her own references, the reference to Maingot saying that members going to and from the Chamber should not be insulted or provoked. That is precisely what led to the circumstance that we are debating. I was going out of the Chamber to, as it turned out, the men's room and was being screamed at by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), in insulting manners yelling coward, Nazi and all of those things. As I said at the time, regrettably I responded in a manner that I was certainly not proud of, and I said to the media--I immediately owned up to it and said to the media, yes, I had said it. I had not said it on the record, I had not said it as a part of the record of this Chamber at any time, but I was not in any way denying it.

Those are things that regrettably happened during this period of time, this very, I think, unfortunate period of time at which the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) came rushing down here, put his face within inches of mine, shouting at me and attempting to intimidate me during that whole period of time, Madam Speaker. I did not move. I did not move, because that we understand. We understand the level that we are dealing with in terms of members opposite. Some of those are the same members opposite, I might say, in that unfortunate strike of 1987 at Westfair Foods, at Superstore, who went out and joined in with groups of people harassing and intimidating elderly people, vulnerable people, coming out of the grocery store. Single mothers and others who were terribly vulnerable were being harassed and intimidated by the likes of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) at that particular time. These are the tactics that they know well.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), as a former union leader, knows the tactics and understands them very, very well, and they are part of the process that they support. We do not support those kinds of things. We did not support, Madam Speaker, the very pious member from Burrows (Mr. Martindale) rushing out and attempting to challenge you physically in the hallway. He had to be stopped by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), among others, and he has the audacity to talk here about physical intimidation.

Mr. Martindale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the day in question, I was leaving the Chamber to see where the Speaker was going, and if anyone misinterpreted my intentions I apologize.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows did not have a point of order. It was a matter of clarification.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, all of those matters, as I said, were matters that none of us should be proud of, and I certainly have not been apologized to by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), or the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) who I have not heard apologize for giving Nazi salutes here in this Chamber. I have not heard the member for--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the Premier is simply digging himself into a deeper and deeper ditch. I did not, nor did my colleague beside me, ever use the word "Nazi" or give a Nazi salute and for him to put that on the record simply makes this whole issue much worse.

Why will he not do what he should do and apologize and get it over with?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood does not have a point of order.

I will take the advice of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) as good advice. I will say despite the fact that I did not put any of the comments that I have acknowledged on the record here in this Chamber, I will apologize to the member for Crescentwood for those remarks to him. I hope that will be satisfactory to him, because I do it in the fullest extent. I do not in any way want to ever stop him from doing his job here in this Chamber, just as I would hope he does not want to prevent me from doing my job in this Chamber or any other person on this side of the House, nor you, Madam Speaker, from doing your job in charge of this House.

I would hope that the kind of bullying that has gone on from members opposite to some of our female members from time to time in the debates in this House would be a part of the past.

I would hope that we would all investigate and review our own actions and say let us get on with it. As the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has said, let us get on with the business of the people of this province. Let us stop all of those negative tactics of the past that New Democrats in this House have utilized far too often for any of our liking, Madam Speaker, and let us get on with the future.

So I say to the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), I give him the full and complete apology for any comments I made in the heat of battle under the kind of shouting of insults that he was giving to me. I will withdraw my remarks completely from him so that he does not feel badly, and I hope that that satisfies, as well, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) in her presentation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I remind all members of the Legislature, particularly those across the way, that the ultimate intimidation, the most effective intimidation is to have 19 minutes left to speak on a bill and not to be recognized by the Speaker and have your microphone turned off, Madam Speaker. Do not ever forget that in this House.

Now that the Premier has apologized for his threat and his intimidation on that day in question, the question before the House remains. It is, Madam Speaker, why you did not rule on a timely basis on the point of order of the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) and, second of all, why you took 77 days to remind us on each and every one of those sitting days that you are there as an adjunct of cabinet, and that is the worse thing a member could say about a Speaker.

You, Madam Speaker, are partial, and despite the shroud over you, you continued sitting after sitting to refuse to rule on the point of order. This is not an ordinary point of order. Extracts were read from Beauchesne which clearly shows that threats, intimidation of that nature, can also be characterized as privilege. This is the most heinous kind of allegation that can be raised on a point of order, and you sat silent, instilling in us to an even deeper extent the fact that you are not there to protect all members of this House. You are not there to watch out for us, particularly when the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) interests are at stake.

* (1410)

I thought of what the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) said. He thought it was unfortunate that the children in the gallery today had to watch this House do what it is doing. What it is doing today, Madam Speaker, is the essence of public business. What we are doing today is the precedent and the conditioned precedent for the democratic process in this very province. I had the same kind of thoughts about what the children must think of in the gallery as I heard the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) characterize again what the Premier had said and particularly the language used against the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). I was saddened that the children in the gallery and all those watching at home have to now have greater insight into the character of our Premier.

I think back on the Premiers of this province, of all parties, and I am proud that they were Premiers despite ideological differences. We have been blessed in this province with good premiership, with good role models, and I am saddened that the children in the gallery had to have that insight. I would urge them to learn something positive from what happened today. You, Madam Speaker, can be part of that positive lesson. You can resign. Thank you.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I accept the Premier's apology, as in the unqualified nature of it, and I thank him for it. Although it is late, I do thank him for it, and I hope we will get on with the business of the House.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is that this House censure the Speaker for failing to rule on the November 22 point of order.

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

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yeas and Nays.

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

Order, please. All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

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

Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Jennissen, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers.

Cummings, Derkach, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Faurschou, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 20, Nays 27.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly defeated.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the minister of multiculture and immigration. Had I not been paired, I would have voted in favour of the motion.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey). Had I not been paired, I would have voted in favour of the motion brought forward by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

Mr. Kowalski: I was paired with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). If I was not paired, I would have voted against the motion.