Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I want to assure you that I do not do this frivolously. This is the first time in the six years that I have been an MLA that I bring forward a matter of privilege. I realize that matters of privilege are not usually brought up very often, but in two days this is the third one so I think this is a very unusual circumstance. It is not a "me, too" matter of privilege.

This matter of privilege was something I thought of doing for some time, but this is the earliest opportunity that I have to bring it forward because I first wanted to check the throne speech to assure myself that the matter was not covered in the throne speech. That matter of privilege I am bringing forward is a question of contempt of this Chamber, of this parliament.

It goes back to about a week ago when I put on my uniform for the first time in a long time and my daughter saw me in it and she looked relieved. I asked her why and she says, well, now when people ask what my dad does for a living I could say he is a police officer. I said, what, you were not proud that your dad was a politician? She said, well, I am prouder that you are a police officer. That day I went to the Public Safety Building where I was with a bunch of recruits and senior officers, and generally I found many of them were glad to see me back, but some of them looked to me with suspicion because I was a politician. This goes against the reason why I have given six years of my life to this Chamber, to public service, is that I thought politicians were doing honourable things.

You know, when I was being talked into running, one of the factors was a discussion I had with Rey Pagtakhan, the member of Parliament, who reinforced upon me about the honour and the pride he has of being a politician and serving the public. But with matters of late, politicians are not held in high regard, and I am not just talking about matters going on in Manitoba. Whether we go to B.C. where Glen Clark is viewed with suspicion because of the awarding of a casino; if I go to Ottawa where Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister, people have already felt badly of him because of his cottage and the road going in there, to what has been going on in Manitoba. The public has come to think of politicians as self-serving, power seeking and manipulating the process for their own good. That is unfortunate.

My mother and father are in the gallery today and I remember someone asking my mother: are you not proud of your son? She said I was proud of him before. But before I leave this Chamber, I want us to do something that is right and honourable and that is to deal with the question of a fair election. Part of a fair election is equal representation, that all citizens of Manitoba should be assured that there will be an election fought on boundaries that reflect the true population in each ward and that the setting of the new boundaries not be used for a political agenda, not be manipulated.

I know for some it is going to be difficult. I know for myself I am not running for re-election so it has no impact on me other than the principle. I know that there are members in this Chamber, whether it is the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) or the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) and the problems it might cause them, or if it is the former Speaker or the current Speaker, there are people who it will be a difficult thing for. But it is the right and honourable thing to do, so I would ask that all members of this Chamber support the motion that I will bring at the end of this matter of privilege.

* (1335)

Now, back in 1989, the last time this legislation was reviewed and the boundaries were changed, there were a number of speakers, including Jay Cowan, who stated, referring to the electoral commission: The fact is they have made that decision--referring to the boundaries--and any attempt by us to go back and ask them to reshape the electoral map or ask them to rethink what they are doing to the North and other areas of the province would violate the integrity of the system. As perfect as that system may be, it would do damage to the basic principle, the overall objective of an impartial and independent and timely—timely--systematic review of our electoral boundaries from time to time. That is what Jay Cowan said back then.

And then Jerry Storie at that time said: However, in the final analysis, although I regret the changes and I think they are not certainly from my perspective going to serve the interests of my constituents as well as I wish they would, we have to respect the independence of the commission, and we certainly want to avoid the perception even that boundaries, political boundaries are going to be manipulated by the Legislative Assembly. That clearly would be an unacceptable alternative.

Unfortunately, with the contempt of this Chamber, is the fact that we have not sat for nearly nine months, and we could not deal with this long before we were shortly before an election. That is the contempt, and so any partisan maneuvering here--I know that the public, regardless of how political parties spin it, regardless of how the media report it, the public are cynical. They are cynical about the media; they are cynical about politicians. It does not matter what is said. If we do not pass these boundaries and get this out of the way and restore the confidence in the electoral process of Manitoba, it holds us all in disrepute.

So, therefore, I make the motion: I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that this House put aside its normal business and consider The Electoral Divisions Act and conduct no other business until The Electoral Divisions Act has been passed or defeated. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

* (1340)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, in response to this motion of privilege by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), let me say that I believe I have been in this Assembly for 11 years, I have gone through the process of redistribution once before, and although redistribution sometimes leaves members with benefits in their ridings or things that they are not so happy with, at the end of the day I have always noted that for the vast majority of members, if not all, there has been the acceptance of boundaries created by our independent boundary commission. This House, in all my recollections and research, has always passed that Bill unanimously, because I think we all share with the member for The Maples the recognition that an independent Boundaries Commission having boundaries in place on a timely basis for elections is an important part of maintaining the currency of our democracy with our population shifts.

Madam Speaker, in this particular round there has been some precedent in the past where the cycle of renewing boundaries, which is a 10-year cycle that coincides with the census--over which no member of this House has control of how long the Boundaries Commission takes to do their report and their final report and get back. Sometimes it coincides with the electoral cycle of four years and does put legislatures into a situation of uncertainty as one moves the bill through the process with potential election windows, et cetera, and we are in this situation. A similar one occurred in 1969 when the redistribution and the electoral cycles corresponded and resulted, I think, in the same kind of uncertainty that the member for The Maples has outlined today.

Under the law of our province, the First Minister I believe has a responsibility to table the report within seven days of the House coming back into session, and I understand that he will be doing that today. The particular document is a very straightforward one; it is one that we have all had access to as members for several months, since the final report has come down. I can advise honourable members that the actual bill to bring into effect the report will be ready in completed form, I am advised, by 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. So that bill will be ready for the House. Obviously, we have processes and procedures that we as a House with unanimous consent have the ability to alter to ensure its passage. If I recall the many numerous occasions when there has been a piece of legislation of this nature, this House has found in itself to accommodate and ensure a speedy passage.

I also can report to the House, I think without breaching any confidences, that in the normal course of conducting House business, the opposition House leader, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and I have had some discussions. We have not yet been able to finalize a process for moving things forward at this stage, but we have had discussions about moving this bill forward recognizing—and I think the member would concur—that the lack of certainty in the process does cause a great disadvantage to the public, as we are in an election year, in preparing, whether it be associations nominating formation of founding meetings, and that to eliminate that uncertainty as soon as possible is in all of our interests and ultimately the interests of the public.

Madam Speaker, the member for The Maples, I think in very good conscience and reminding us today of that fact, brings forward this motion of privilege.

I would like to propose—and when the member spoke with his resolution, obviously if this is accepted as a motion of privilege and is passed. Given the fact that the bill is not available till tomorrow, et cetera, that the logistics of running the House cause some difficulty, I am prepared to propose today, and I think we on this side of the House would be prepared to propose if there is a willingness of all members—our rules require unanimous consent. We are prepared to propose that the Throne Speech Debate be postponed or adjourned for two days, up to two days, Thursday and Friday of this week, and that this House accommodate the passage of the bill. It will be available as of 2 p.m. tomorrow.

So, following Question Period, if there is unanimous consent, we can give it first reading, move it into second reading. If one looks at the Hansards of previous debates, members may debate some of the theory around variations of 10 or 25 percent. Members may debate names that have been given to constituencies. Members may talk about the loss of particular constituencies. I recall the former member for Fort Rouge speaking about the loss of that particular constituency as it became Crescentwood. But if one looks at the speeches, there is not an issue of substance in this bill. This is a very straightforward piece of legislation. Many members may wish to speak for the reasons I have outlined, as is the tradition.

* (1345)

We would be prepared to grant unanimous consent to see the bill move in tomorrow. If there were more members wishing to speak tomorrow afternoon than time allowed, we could proceed. We would agree to proceed on Friday.

I think, Madam Speaker, if one looks at the amount of time that members have actually spent on the bill, two days would accommodate the traditional discussion and that we, in fact, if there was a willingness in the House, could see the bill do the required committee stage--Committee of the Whole I think is part of the procedure for this--and have Royal Assent by Friday afternoon, and the people of our province would know for certain and the political parties and candidates would know for sure that the next general election will be fought on the up-to-date boundaries. If the House were to give consent to that move, we would see an additional two days added on to the Throne Speech Debate. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, because I know today is by tradition of this House--the day after the throne speech is moved and seconded, the Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to respond. That would allow today, and we certainly would want to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that he had his opportunity which is also part of the tradition and fairness in order to see that happen.

So, Madam Speaker, we would be prepared, if there is a unanimous consent, to see that in fact happen.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: I apologize. The honourable House leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I realize we have not been sitting for awhile so some of us may need name tags to recognize each other.

In fact, that is at the root of this problem. The boundaries report came out in December, and I would just respectfully say to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that he might want to direct some of his concerns toward the government directly because they decided not to sit in December, not to sit in January, not to sit in February, not to sit in March, not to sit in April. When they came into the session, Madam Speaker, they had the option of not ending the previous session. They could have come in--we adjourned the previous session. They decided to prorogue, which meant we deal with the throne speech which is the normal procedure, and we have proceedings in place. I want to say that we have had more than three months in which we could have been sitting and this item could have been dealt with. It was the government’s choice not to do so.

I want to indicate, too, that I am somewhat surprised with the statements from the government House leader because he had indeed contacted myself. I want to go one step further and indicate that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) spoke to me personally yesterday about discussions that are ongoing in terms of I think the desire of everyone in this House to get the boundaries issue dealt with. I note the enthusiasm that we see on the government side, enthusiasm that was somewhat less apparent a number of months ago. I think the government realized the error of its ways, because if you remember it was the government that was saying that they might be running on old boundaries. I take the Premier’s conversion on this to be an honest conversion, and I suspect that there will be further discussions.

I would say to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that I am sure that we can work out a process that follows the rules of the House that will ensure this is passed. In fact, the one way of ensuring this--there is only one person in this House who can really ensure this. It is the Premier, because he is the one who has one thing that we have no control over. He has one card to play on this, and that is the timing of an election. I think in fact if the Premier wants to stand up and assure this House that he will not call the election before those boundaries are dealt with, we can all agree, and we can deal with it in a fair manner.

I just want to finish off, Madam Speaker, because I want to say this personally to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), because I respect the member for The Maples and his contribution to this House, and I wish him well whenever his old, new, future career will start. But, you know, my dad was at actually the Premier’s reception yesterday, and you know my parents have always told me they are proud of me for being in something I consider the most honourable profession in the province and that public service, serving my constituents, my home community of Thompson and eight surrounding communities--and I am proud of that. I want to say to the member for The Maples that I understand the concern that is out there and the cynicism about politics and politicians, and we are going to be getting into some issues later on I am sure in Question Period that talk about that cynicism, where it comes from. One of the reasons we fight as strongly as we do on those types of issues is because it is so important to preserve the integrity of politics and the people that serve the people of Manitoba, every MLA in this House.

* (1350)

I want to say to the member for The Maples: please do one thing. When you go back to your other career, please tell them to remember that politicians—it is very easy to bash politicians nowadays, but we are nothing more than citizens of this province who are elected by our fellow citizens to serve this province. We may at times stray from the perfect mark of what we should be dealing with—and we will deal with that in a few moments too. But I say and I want to put this on the record, and I encourage the member for The Maples to go back and tell people, that all we are trying to do in this House, all 57 of us, is do the best thing for the province of Manitoba, and that is an honourable thing to do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I am not too sure--I do want to address this very important matter of privilege that has been raised by the member for The Maples—in terms of what the position is after listening to the opposition House leader. But suffice to say, I had full intentions on somewhat lambasting and making fun of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer). I was going to talk and quote the Minister of Finance when he indicated, while I do not agree with the end results, I think I can agree with other members who say we must support the process, and we cannot tamper with that at this late date. I think on the basis I will certainly be voting in favour of this legislation, and then we are talking about the previous boundary distribution.

Given the government House leader’s response, I am going to assume and make the assumption then that the government House leader is in fact speaking on behalf of the government. Having said that, it is a very critical matter of privilege. What I would do is I would cite individuals to look at Beauchesne’s Citation 260. Remember later this day we would normally be dealing with the throne speech.

We believe in the Liberal Party it is inappropriate for us to be dealing with the throne speech when we have the new boundaries which could potentially be put off indefinitely because the throne speech does not make a commitment to pass these new boundaries. Let us go to Beauchesne’s Citation 260: "There have been exceptions to this procedure."—and the procedure being that of a throne speech—"At the first sitting of the session in 1937, the Prime Minister did not introduce a pro forma Bill respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office. He introduced Bill No. 1, An Act Respecting Alteration in the Law Touching the Succession to the Throne, which was read the first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House."

Madam Speaker, Beauchesne’s does establish very clearly that it is not unprecedented that in fact there is good reason and just cause for this Legislature to be dealing with the critical issue of the electoral boundary redistribution. There is in fact, I would argue, an obligation on this government to accept that, and I hear that the government House leader has done that. Equally, there is an obligation on the official opposition to accept that, and I look to the leadership of the opposition party to do just that.

Madam Speaker, I can recall—and all of us knew about this well in advance--in fact, back on Monday, June 15, a quote from Hansard, because I do not necessarily want to be accused of saying this after I have seen the boundaries. On June 15—and you will know that the boundaries were released in July—and I quote: "I am sure all members are very much aware of redistribution of boundaries. From what I understand, the proposed boundaries are going to be coming out at the end of the month, the beginning of July. I think the government has a responsibility to look at what the intent of the law was. The government might want to take into consideration the need to coming back, let us say, for example, in the fall time in order to accommodate, because the last thing that I would want to see is if you have new boundaries that come forward and then there is an election that is based strictly on old boundaries when the government had the opportunity to base it on the new boundaries. Ultimately the new boundaries will prevail and it does not have an impact, the new boundaries on representation, whether or not elected officials want to acknowledge that or not."

* (1355)

Madam Speaker, obviously as the government House leader has referred, something of this nature would require unanimous consent of the Chamber in order to make it happen. Let us not forget that first, second, third and Royal Assent is, in essence, what we are looking for, so what I did is I went back to the previous Bill 11 in redistribution, and I, like most people I am sure, am quite familiar with the rules of this Chamber.

First reading was given of that electoral reform back on May 24, 1989. Well, quite often when we introduce bills, the bill sits on the Order Paper, and nothing really comes of it until we get into the second reading. Second reading was then given on June 21, 1989. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) quoted a few individuals that spoke to it, and that is all. No, there were not 21 speakers. There was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Sixteen. That is if, in fact, our research capabilities, and we are somewhat limited, not as much resources, is in fact accurate on the count. Having said that, Madam Speaker, that was on June 21.

On June 23, it went into committee. Somewhere on my desk, to give you an idea, I brought the actual page from Hansard. It passed through committee, and I could virtually read this, it only takes a half a minute. Mr. Chairman, which was Mr. Chornopyski at the time: Committee come to order to consider Bill No. 11, The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act. We shall proceed to consider Bill No. 11 clause by clause. Clause 1, 2—Pass, pass. Preamble—Pass. Title—Pass. Bill be reported. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, this is something which passed in a very quick fashion. I will get right back to the relevancy of it.

Some Honourable Members: We do not want to take four weeks. That is too long.

Mr. Lamoureux: Now I am not suggesting four weeks at all. What I am suggesting--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster that he should be attempting to establish why the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has a prima facie case for a point of privilege.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the core of it, of course, is that it is indeed in contempt of the Legislature, what we have seen. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was quite right in his assertion when he said that we have not been sitting, with the exception of yesterday, of course, since June 29, 1998. There was an obligation, and that is a point in which the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) spoke well of, and what we are trying to do is to be able to support that particular argument.

The last redistribution, in essence, went through quite quickly in this Legislature and could very easily go through quickly again. I talked to Elections Manitoba earlier today, in terms of--and I think members need to be aware of this. I talked to them earlier today and wanted to find out what process they went through. In December of 1997 a researcher was hired, or secretary was hired, where they did some background work. In February of 1998 the commission first met. Between February and May, map options in working with Census Canada material was brought in. On July 1, draft was released to the public. In May, we received the first copy of the boundaries, of the existing ones, where it showed the discretion. A good example, and I look to the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), and I look to you in Seine River. Madam Speaker, if you look, the member for Point Douglas today represents--[interjection] I am not stalling.

Madam Speaker: I would request that the honourable member for Inkster quickly summarize his prima facie case in defence of the honourable member for The Maples’ (Mr. Kowalski) matter of privilege.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, you set quite a challenge for me. When we think of contempt of the Chamber, let us not lose sight that the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) represents somewhere in the neighbourhood of 18,000, while you represent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000. You know, these are the types of inequities, when we talk about the contempt of this Chamber; these are the types of issues that have to be dealt with. There is a responsibility for not only the government but also the official opposition. The public has had input between August 27 and September 11, seven different locations throughout the province on the proposed boundaries. There has been a great deal of effort. That report was tabled on December 18 through Elections Manitoba.

I plead in particular to the opposition party. Given that we have a commitment from the government today that they will in fact bring in the legislation and we will not deal with the throne speech until that legislation passes, on behalf of the Liberal Party we would appeal to the New Democratic Party to do the right—[interjection] Well, he says it is political. If you want—do we want to pass it? The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) surrenders. Maybe I should take my note from that.

I know it is difficult. There is a need today. Today we have one party organizing on new boundaries; you have another party organizing on old boundaries. There is a need, and we need to recognize that need. The matter that the member for The Maples brings up—[interjection] I will wind up, Madam Speaker, and therefore the New Democrats will be able to address the issue. Hopefully it will be dealt with.

An Honourable Member: Have you read the report?

Mr. Lamoureux: Have you seen the bill? I have not seen the bill. [interjection] You are not going to pass the bill?

An Honourable Member: Are you going to vote against it?

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, this is the reason why—

Madam Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate, and I had previously requested that the honourable member for Inkster quickly summarize his comments. I have been very, very flexible and allowed a considerable amount of latitude. I would ask that the honourable member conclude within the next 30 seconds, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: I will, in respect for the Chair, conclude by saying, Madam Speaker, if we look in Beauchesne’s, in Citation 260, there is precedent. We would argue that it is imperative that this Legislature deal with the boundary distribution issue prior to any sort of debate on the throne speech. It is in the best interests of not any political party; it is in the best interests of all Manitobans, and we appeal to every member to agree with that and agree to have that bill passed.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I did in my remarks ask if there was unanimous consent to proceed on the basis outlined. I know the Leader of the Opposition had indicated a willingness to give certainty and the opposition was not clear—

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the matter raised by the honourable government House leader, procedurally I must deal with the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for The Maples first. If indeed the honourable government House leader wishes to rise on House business, he may do so at a later opportunity.

On the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), I will indeed take the matter under advisement to consult with the authorities and report back to the Chamber.