LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, June 20, 1994

The House met at 8 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(continued)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

STATUS OF WOMEN

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates for the Status of Women.

Does the honourable Minister responsible for the Status of Women have an opening statement?

Point of Order

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): On my matter of privilege, it is fitting that we are in the beginning of the Status of Women's Estimates here tonight. I think there is no better place to have my matter of privilege come forward since it does affect my status as a woman in the Legislature. I also want to clarify that I want to deal with this matter not only as it is affecting me personally but as it does affect women throughout the province.

I think when I look at the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) and I realize he has had a chance in the Chamber to clarify the situation, he has had a chance to apologize, as members have had on numerous other occasions, and he has not used that opportunity, I think the seriousness of this has increased. It seems that the minister has made the decision to dig himself even deeper. I want to assure the committee that I feel quite confident, particularly with the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) and the amount of support I have received from my own caucus and from the second opposition and from members of the community.

I have received a number of phone calls from members of the community saying they think it is about time these kinds of things in the Chamber were addressed. They are horrified when they hear of some of the other examples of disrespect and reference to violence and reference to members in a sexist and racist manner.

I think the comments that have been made in terms of the Legislature reaching a new low when we have threats being made or insinuations of violence being made, it does cross a line, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and you were in the Chair at this committee when the incident occurred. I know in my discussions with you, you have indicated that you heard some commotion at that time which indicated, I think as well, that you knew that something of seriousness had occurred.

I think it is important that women do take a stand, that we are not being victims when we voice our concern when we stand up and we say that this has happened. I think some of the comments that have been made in the community in terms of women being victims if they are going to voice these kinds of concern, it is like you are put in a position where you are walking a fine line. On the one hand, if you do not defend yourself, you are considered to be a wimp or you cannot cut it. On the other hand, if you do defend yourself, it is like you are no better than they are. So it is really putting people, I think all of us as MLAs, in a very disadvantageous situation, in a very narrow, narrow mode of being able to function when we have this kind of behaviour, when we have this kind of approach being taken in the House.

I also want to deal with the issue in terms of other areas where it has occurred, because one of the first things that happens, as I can see it, when someone is going to be discredited, is they are called names. When someone does not want to deal with the ideas or the issue that you are raising, they will try to call you names and attack you personally, and that is supposed to somehow take away your credibility rather than dealing with the issues. I think that is really one of the things that this is about. This is about saying that we should be debating ideas and issues and stick to the high road and that we cannot continue to have these kinds of personal attacks, whether it is coming at members opposite or people in the community who are voicing concerns and issues that the members in the House may not agree with.

So I think that this has to be taken seriously, and I think that some of the members opposite have made the comment that we are trivializing women's issues. I think that there is no better way to show how seriously we take these matters than to bring them forward in a way that is going to force everyone to consider the way that we behave in the Legislature.

Now it would not have made any difference if I had raised the matter in the committee. It would not have made any difference since the Minister of Energy and Mines' (Mr. Orchard) comments were not on the record. So I just want to state that unfortunately the rules do not allow the member for Osborne's (Ms. McCormick) comments to stand as evidence as they would in other situations. So, with that in mind, I think that what we have to do to see this matter through is have it referred from this committee into the House where we can have the chance to look at it more closely. I know that there were a number of other people in the room from the Department of Environment. There were the members of the staff on the committee.

So I move

THAT the comments of the Minister of Energy and Mines of Monday, June 13, to myself in the Committee of Supply indicating "she needs a slap" that violate my privilege as a member of the Legislature be reported to the House and that in accordance with the provisions of Beauchesne Citation 107 this committee recommend that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Can I have the copy of the motion in writing, please?

Motion presented.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I must inform the committee that, in accordance with Beauchesne Citation 107, it has no power to deal with a matter of privilege. Such matters can only be dealt with by the House itself on receiving a report from the committee. Therefore, I am prepared to entertain this motion and report the alleged matter of privilege to the House. The motion is debatable.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member in presenting her alleged matter of privilege, made the specific reference that the comments were not part of the record. How can you have a matter of privilege in which comments are not part of the record? Comments, if they are made, are picked up by those interjection mikes on the middle of the table which are in closer earshot than my honourable friend was, allegedly, in sitting on the other side of the table. You cannot have a matter of privilege on words that are not spoken and part of the record.

Sir, this is an incredible matter of privilege to be raised on an admission that it is not part of the record. What do we do next in terms of raising matters of privilege? What allegations do we bring forward as matters of privilege with no substance to them?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all I want to indicate, as you indicated, the motion reports the matter to the House. The House will deal with the specifics in terms of the question, first of all, whether there be a prima facie case of a privilege.

* (2010)

I would also like to point out that this is, in essence, the first opportunity to raise it since the ruling of the Speaker in the House on Friday. That is why this matter has been brought back at this particular point in time.

I do not want to make comments strictly in terms of its weight as a matter of privilege, but I think we should define what the concern is here and why the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) is so concerned about the remarks that were made and indeed why comments that have been made in the House, outside of the House in various different rooms, have been, according to precedent, ruled as matters of privilege in the past, and there are various precedents for those types of comments.

I believe, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for any member of the Legislature to be able to uphold his or her responsibility to this House that that member has to be able to do so expecting that there might be some disagreements in debate. There might be even some heated disagreements in debate and discussions of issues. I believe that there has to be a line drawn in terms of comments that can be viewed as direct personal attacks, particularly where there is concern on behalf of the member that those comments are in some way, shape, or form being used to intimidate the person, the individual member, into not performing his or her duties.

By the way, there are various different precedents in terms of privilege where this has been the case, including press comments, individual comments, threats. There are specific citations in Beauchesne that refer to that matter.

I believe, based on what occurred last Monday, the best way of dealing with this matter would be, as the motion presents in the form of a remedy, first to report it to the House and then to have the matter raised at Privileges and Elections, because I believe and I think anyone who has heard the debate on the matter in the House both on Wednesday and Friday, I think it is very clear to my mind that the member for Radisson believes that the comments that were made by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) fell in that category.

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I hate to say this, and I do not mean this as a reflection on the House in general, but I do believe the member for Radisson has been subjected to a number of comments, most of which were certainly not in the same category as the comments we are dealing with now, which do border on certainly harassment in the generic sense, whether it be some of the comments that are hurled across the House in terms of the form of nicknames, et cetera.

Those are not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with comments here that were made in the committee that were witnessed by at least one other member of the Legislature. The Minister of Energy and Mines has a different version of what happened. The Minister of Energy and Mines rose on his feet on a statement in the House on Friday and added further comments to the record which, in the context of the point of order which was raised, will probably result in a further Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the right thing to do is to refer this matter to the House and have it referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Now, I would hope, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the process‑‑and I say to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) that the way, I believe, to deal with this matter would be, to begin with, the minister doing what I thought he was going to do on Friday, which is to make a statement withdrawing comments, clarifying comments, whatever, but in some form‑‑what I would have expected in the way of some form of an apology or a clarification, instead of raising further issues. That would be the first step.

But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in doing that, I do believe that if there is one thing we can all do, and I say all of us as members of this Legislature, following this incident and reflecting on the fact that this is not the only time that comments have been made of a personal nature and certainly not only to the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I remember when I was elected to this Legislature, I thought that was the way it always was. But this is the 1990s. Maybe it is not the way it should always be.

Maybe we say things at times which we do not realize the consequences of, and I say this to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Maybe we say things that may be viewed as an extension of some of the give and take of debate, but I believe any objective analysis of what was said on Monday would, I think, lead to the same conclusion that many people have taken, that the Minister of Energy and Mines went beyond the normal give and take of debate and indeed did raise comments which, to my mind, apart from being something that would reflect in terms of privilege, just have no real place in the Manitoba Legislature.

So why do we not do the proper thing? Get this matter referred to the House, refer it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and perhaps in the process, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, do some soul‑searching as an institution, because I believe we have made a lot of progress. I can say that I believe there is a lot less acrimony certainly than a number of years ago in this House, a lot less, in terms of personal comments back and forth, personal attacks.

I think that there is a great deal of courtesy shown by the vast majority of members, whether it be in terms of gender sensitivity, Mr. Deputy Chairperson‑‑and I know I was asked that question when this issue came up, and quite frankly, I believe the vast majority of MLAs do not need gender‑sensitivity training. I believe some perhaps might.

I believe some of us collectively might need some personal sensitivity training, because I think what we forget here is that when people see the kind of a display that takes place here, they would expect that if a concern was raised it would be dealt with by a committee of the Legislature and that all sides of the concern be dealt with and there be some remedy, because that is the important thing here.

Comments were made. It is not the first time that comments have been made. It will not be the last, unless we act and do the right thing and make a commitment as a Legislature to try to remove some of the type of personal, acrimonious and, in this case, in the view of the member for Radisson, threatening comments that in this particular case would certainly to my mind justify being considered a prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense, but I think in terms of the general public view would be considered as absolutely inappropriate in terms of the kind of debate they expect from us, because that is the truth here.

The members of the public watching us the last few days I think have been dismayed, and I think they would expect us, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to deal with this matter and to make sure that we all collectively make an effort to ensure that this type of incident does not happen again.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just wanted to add a few words to this particular motion, a motion in principle which we can support, and it is primarily because of this. We have an allegation, a very strong allegation, that comments were put to the member for Radisson Monday last, and those comments have been substantiated by at least one other member, my colleague the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick), who also heard those particular comments. The matter was brought up in the Chamber, as we all know. Those comments were categorically denied. We have an individual who feels that there has been a matter of privilege, based on her ability to be able to represent her constituents, which I think has to be taken seriously.

I believe that there is some merit, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the committee doing what it can to try to resolve this matter. There are a couple of things that come to my mind, such as the pulling of the tapes from Monday last. Even under the pulling of the tapes, I know the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) had made mention that the interjection mikes should have picked it up. Well, I have been inside the Chamber when a number of comments are made, and members will hear what those comments are. Quite often, they will be called to account for those comments and in many cases will stand up to apologize or to retract the comments that were said. Not in all cases do those words show up in Hansard and ultimately be heard through the interjection mikes, so I think that we do have to take this very seriously in the sense that we have two members of the Legislative Assembly who have claimed to have heard what the Minister of Energy and Mines said.

We have a minister who is categorically denying it, and by sending it to the House, we have a better chance at trying to resolve the issue. As the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) pointed out, there were other individuals who were in the committee at the time, and anything that would seek further clarification to demonstrate one way or the other, I think would be to the benefit of all members of the Chamber, in the best interest of all.

* (2020)

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, much has been made of the fact that the comments made during the proceedings of the Department of Environment Estimates were not on the record. Having witnessed the event, I can say that in fact the comments were made while the Minister of Energy and Mines was at the table. The presence of nonparticipating members at the table in the Estimates debate is clearly oriented to a goal of intimidation. The question is this: How far are we prepared to let members go in the name of intimidation?

I wish to put two statements on the record; firstly, I am under no illusion that the problems and obstacles faced by women in this Chamber will disappear no matter how this issue is resolved. Secondly, I think it is important to recognize that women politicians have to answer to the same constituencies as men do to get elected and re‑elected. Public sentiment is clearly on the side of ensuring a standard which promotes a courteous and respectful treatment of each other, and I support the motion for referral to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not here the night in question, so I do not know who said what to whom. I do know, however, that there is nothing I can read that tells me how this conversation went or did not go. I am intrigued by the comments made by the member for Osborne. I am intrigued by the comments made by the member for Radisson. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has indicated that things are a lot better in the House now than they used to be. I shudder to think what they used to be like.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that from time to time each one of us in the House has had comments hurled at us that are, to say on the kindest interpretation, meanspirited and cruel. I have sat there and had things hurled at me that cut through to the heart and hurt very deeply. I know that other members of my caucus have experienced the same thing from members of the official opposition and from members, less occasionally because maybe there are less of them, of the second opposition party.

Those comments have been hurled back and forth across the House since I became a member. I came in‑‑and like the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski)‑‑with the view that I was not going to sink to the depths of being as rude and cruel and everything in my heckles as other people had been. I held to that for, I think, about two months before I cracked and entered into the heckling and the kinds of comments that are made in the House.

I noticed with deep regret the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) sitting in the front row of the third party two weeks ago screaming like a banshee after he had vowed that he would not ever do that.

So I guess what I am saying is that I concur with the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that the acrimony in the House is regrettable and I would love‑‑love‑‑to see that end.

We have a rule that if we called to order on it every time it came up in our own blue book of rules and procedures‑‑not Beauchesne‑‑rules 42, 43, somewhere in there, that says you cannot interrupt and you cannot do that type of thing in the House, and we never rise and call it as a point of order.

Although I know that the greatest abuse of points of order are used by members opposite who are on their feet constantly calling for a point of order when they know full well that it is not a point of order they are rising upon. They are abusing the rules of the House by using a point of order to get some other message across they know does not apply.

Frequently, the messages coming across are based upon erroneous assumptions, known to be erroneous assumptions, a false premise presented as fact and then arguments built upon the false premise in a way designed to destroy the integrity of a people who have integrity in a cruel, malicious and vicious way, and that is what we present to the public. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is correct in that.

The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) should recognize that sometimes comments hurled our way are as bad, if not worse, than anything she has allegedly claimed to have had said to her in recent weeks. I suppose maybe when you are government you just sit and let it roll off your back. Maybe we should not. Maybe we should be rising every single time something is said. I would be up all the time if that happened to me.

I think the motion is out of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I look for you to rule on it appropriately. I just felt those comments needed to be made, because it is very well for us to rise up in self‑righteous indignation when perhaps we should‑‑as the member for Thompson says (Mr. Ashton)‑‑look to our own selves. That advice goes both ways.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I tend to have a reasonable amount of respect for the experience of the government House leader, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the official opposition. I think he, in his presentation just a few moments ago, recognizes that this is a very tenuous matter of privilege according to the rules of our Chamber. It may well be another matter that he wishes to raise, but not a matter of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am certainly not prepared to enter into this debate except to put on the record officially that I and other members were sitting immediately adjacent to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) when this incident took place. I categorically put on the record that the references made in this resolution were not made by the Minister of Energy and Mines.

In saying this, I do not say that they may‑‑the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick)‑‑well have heard a remark that is alluded to in this resolution, that may well be. I cannot categorically say that that remark was not expressed in the Chamber, I did not hear it, but I can categorically, being the closest, put on the record it was not made by the Minister of Energy and Mines.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you have simply a genuine dispute of the fact. But it is patently wrong to put on the record a resolution of this kind that specifically singles out a particular member for an alleged conduct and puts words in his mouth that he in fact categorically denies and has immediate people closest to his presence when they were allegedly made who categorically say that they were not made. Now, I believe that is the ruling. The ruling is simply that this is not a legitimate matter of privilege for the House and the rules committee to deal with.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would just like to inform the honourable members that under Citation 107, this committee cannot deal with a matter of privilege. All matters of privilege are dealt with by the House. What this motion is doing is taking this, referring this motion to the House to be dealt with by the Speaker. We do not deal with whether it is in order or not; the Speaker will make that decision when it gets to the House.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also have a great deal of respect for the skills you have demonstrated as Chair. You can certainly decide whether any issue, any motion is in order or out of order. I am suggesting to you this motion is out of order, and I look for a ruling from you.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. I do not have the ability to rule on a matter of privilege within this committee. Under Citation 107 of Beauchesne, we cannot deal as a committee, or myself as a Chair, on whether or not the matter of privilege is in order. The matter of privilege has to be dealt with in the House.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would ask you to seek further advice from your table officers, but I find it incomprehensible that a Chair of a legislative committee cannot rule on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a matter raised. I would like to be shown where you cannot rule in such a manner.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: If I may, for the honourable minister's benefit, I will read Citation 107. "Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee. Thus should a witness refuse to attend, or refuse to give evidence, the committee must report the fact to the House for remedial action."

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is a very significant issue and one that carries a lot of gravity to it. The question of whether persons in the banter and repartee that takes place in the House are attempting to intimidate people or attempting to denigrate people in the process or not, I suppose is 99 percent in the eye of the beholder. I, quite frankly, find it objectionable that I am classified, for instance, by members here in the debate this evening, that I would be lumped together along with every other member of the House in imputing motives, if you will, as to why banter and repartee take place in the House.

* (2030)

There is no question in anybody's mind that all of us deserve a lesson, I suppose, to one degree or another with respect to what may or may not seem to be a put‑down or in some degree denigrating to an individual member of the House. I suppose it is important that we have this discussion so that we all understand and we all respect, to a greater degree perhaps than we have in the past, that every member is an honourable member in the House.

I do not think for a second that the kind of repartee that does take place is aimed particularly at trying to intimidate anybody or trying to denigrate anybody in this process. Since I have been here and since I have been involved, not just here but in another chamber as well, comments and repartee do take place.

What is the goal here? What is the intent? What do we want to achieve collectively as members of the Legislature in this process? I suspect in the first instance, Mr. Deputy Chair, it is a recognition by all members that we ought to be careful in terms of what we say and that innocent remarks given sometimes are not received in the same manner in which they were given. I know from time to time that matters that are intended to be humourous sometimes are taken in a different vein, but what is the intent? What is the purpose? What do we want to achieve collectively as members of the Legislature here? Is it to sensitize ourselves collectively to the problems that may or may not occur in the House, or is it to carry on with the‑‑I do not like to say persecution‑‑but carry on with a process that ultimately may or may not lead anywhere.

I think ultimately the process that we all want to be involved in, the understanding I think that all of us need to have here is that sometimes we make statements that are taken by those made to in a different vein from which they were intended or may certainly be taken that way. But the process ultimately I think is a learning process for all of us here, and I think we ought to maybe understand that. I certainly hope that is the purpose behind the member for Radisson's raising the issue again this evening, that ultimately we need to collectively understand more appropriately the feelings and how members sometimes take issues or understand statements that are made in the House.

At the same time, to proceed hopefully not in a meanspirited way, but to proceed further with this issue I do not know is necessarily going to resolve a great deal, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. The raising of the issue, the discussion of it amongst ourselves, the members voicing their opinions as to how they feel certain statements and nicknames and whatever else you want to have come forward in the House and in committee, how they feel about those circumstances, I think serves to the benefit of every member of the House.

No one is innocent in this process. No one. I have sat here for eight years and heard all kind of statements being made either on the record or off the record, or picked up by the interjectory mikes or not picked up, by members of the Legislature. If we were to rise on a point of privilege each and every time one of those statements was made, Mr. Deputy Chair, we would do nothing but that. We would not do Estimates. We would not debate bills. We would be simply meeting on points of privilege and having discussions about points of privilege.

I suspect that what we have experienced to date in this matter has been healthy I think and helpful in the overall process. To carry it further, Mr. Deputy Chair, I see offers little I think in the way of education, in the way of understanding, in the way of members collectively learning from this experience and hopefully for the better.

I also suspect that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), with his long‑standing experience in the House, may well be right, that what we have is a dispute over the facts and not a matter of privilege per se.

The member does not, in her motion, indicate how her privilege was violated; she simply says that it was violated. So, Mr. Deputy Chair, I do not wish to challenge your ruling, if the advice you have been given is that this matter simply needs to be referred, but I suspect that any Chair of any Legislative committee would have the right to determine if a motion is in order or not. The question of privilege cannot be decided by the committee, but the question of it being in order I suspect can be decided by the Chair of the committee.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have listened very carefully to what has been said on this issue and specifically the motion that has been put before the committee.

First of all, it would appear to me when I read the preamble or the first part of the motion, that the motion in itself is questionable, No. 1. As Chairperson of the committee, you might want to pay very close attention to the actual wording of the motion before you decide whether to allow the motion to in fact be dealt with at this committee or whether you might want to rule it out of order.

Secondly, the term, and I quote from the motion, "she needs a slap"‑‑the allegation as made by that term is something that clearly astounds me, because I was sitting that day in the chair that is now being occupied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) sat right next to me, to my right, when the reference was made as to whether the member had been taken to the woodshed.

The term "taken to the woodshed" has clearly been coined by her own Leader in the House and has been time and time again referred to and pointed specifically at members such as myself when I was removed from cabinet and referenced clearly that I was severely reprimanded in the woodshed. That is recorded in Hansard.

I find it astounding that we now want to put on the record that a member should be slapped when the term was never, is not anywhere indicated, on the record and that we are allowing that kind of statement to be included in a motion before this committee and allow that motion to stand and be dealt with.

I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to give very serious second thought before you allow this motion to be dealt with in this committee.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to thank all honourable members for their words during this debate. It is not that you are challenging my ruling. I understand you are questioning of my ruling. It is not a ruling as such because we, within this committee, cannot rule on a matter of privilege. That is what the honourable member is bringing forward at this time, is a matter of privilege.

What we are dealing with is a very serious matter here. The honourable member is bringing forward a matter or privilege. This committee is not able to deal with that matter or privilege. This committee can only refer that alleged matter of privilege to the House. That is what this motion is recommending we do.

Is the committee ready for the question?

* (2040)

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a motion that is required to be voted on presumes you can either vote one way or the other, that you can refer it or not refer it.

If, in fact, the committee is incapable of dealing with it, then there should be no motion to vote at all. The question should simply be referred without vote, unless there is some ability for the committee to deal with it.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am going to have to ask the advice of the committee. Is the honourable House leader challenging my ruling?

Mr. Ernst: I am asking a question, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, of you. If a motion cannot be dealt with in the negative, then the matter should simply be referred, period. There should be no vote. If, however, it is expected that there is a vote and an ability to vote one way or the other, then, in fact, if the committee chose to vote no, it would be, in your view, based on your ruling, dealing with a matter of privilege.

Now alternately on the same point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the question then could arise, is the motion in order or not? Similarly, you can deal with the matter in that way as well, I would assume. Otherwise, the rules would say that the matter would simply be referred to the House for consideration and being dealt with.

So the question is, do we vote on this matter or is it simply referred? If we do vote on this matter, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then I suspect that your earlier ruling may not have been entirely accurate in dealing with the question of whether the matter is in order.

Mr. Ashton: If I might be of some assistance, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the provisions of Beauchesne in terms of parliamentary privilege are clear. The committee does not have jurisdiction in and as of itself to review matters of privilege and breaches of privilege. However, when breaches of privilege do occur, then the appropriate mechanism is for the committee to refer to the House because the House has jurisdiction to deal with those matters of privilege as they occur.

So what we are essentially doing here is deciding whether this matter should be reported to the House. Committee members have the option of voting yes on this motion or voting no on this motion, on any component of the motion, but you are quite in order in ruling that this matter is in order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because it cites a specific citation by Beauchesne, Citation 107. What it does is refer the matter to the House, and then the specifics of whether there is prima facie case of privilege will then be dealt upon committee report in the House. So this matter is in order, and I would suggest that if there is any disagreement on the motion, we put it to a vote.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Just to clarify it, I am not ruling this matter in order or out of order. I have not the ability to do that. As Chairperson, this motion is being‑‑you are being asked whether you want to refer this matter of privilege to the House.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, correct me if I am not right. This matter was brought up in the House. The Speaker ruled that this committee should deal with it. Now you are saying you are not going to deal with it, you want to throw it back to the House to be dealt with. What kind of revolving door system of rules have we got here?

At issue is, is the alleged statement, as many members indeed more who are prepared to corroborate that was never made in the House, very important? To that extent, it is a question of the orderliness of the issue that is being raised. I am simply, again, and I will desist from any further comment saying that by reference, by this committee's acceptance in referencing the motion before us to the House acknowledges that what is contained in the motion in fact did take place. And that simply, Sir, did not take place.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Just to advise the honourable member, it is the Speaker who will decide on whether or not this is a prima facie case for a matter of privilege. The Speaker, when he referred this matter back to this committee: therefore, I am ruling that this matter is out of order as a matter of privilege. The honourable member may, however, wish to raise the matter in the Committee of Supply and the committee could decide whether or not to report it to the House.

That is what we are doing. We are dealing with the matter on whether we want to report it to the House or not, and I have not the ability to rule it in order or out of order. We are referring it to the House. Is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have before me a motion. It says, I move. Motions, whether they be in the House or be in committee, are ruled in order or out of order. The subject of the motion is not of interest. It is whether the motion itself is in order. Now, I might submit to my honourable friend, that as Chairperson, that in introducing this in the preamble to introducing the motion, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) indicated that there is no evidence of any statements as she alleges in making the motion.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I think all honourable friends have a responsibility to do, in fact it is part of the rules, is that if, in fact, you have a matter of privilege, that your privileges have been abused during the course of the House or the committee, it is the responsibility of the member so offended to immediately raise that matter. I realize that my honourable friend one week later is saying that she believes certain phraseologies were used, and it stems from a committee meeting approximately seven days ago. The duty of the member for Radisson, if those comments were made, was to raise them immediately and have them dealt with in the committee immediately.

Such was not the case. It was not raised that evening. It was not raised the next day, as is the next earliest opportunity to bring that matter before the House, where the House, Sir, can deal with a matter of privilege which my honourable friend did finally bring before the House on Wednesday, some two days later, not at the earliest opportunity of the evening when she alleges this happened.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this motion is out of order. This motion does not have substance. This motion is based on the member who moved its admission that the statement does not exist anywhere in the record of Hansard. It has been collaborated that it has not been said. I have indicated for some time it was not said. Now, my honourable friend, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has brought up a motion which has no substance, in fact, and is moving a matter of privilege one week late which is not within the rules of the House. That is grounds by itself to have this motion ruled out of order.

Now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would say that the motion is dealt with by this committee, and you, Sir, as Chair of this committee, should rule the motion in order or out of order and the committee will decide whether it is in order or out of order.

* (2050)

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, I believe there is some confusion here. You are not ruling whether this is a matter of privilege or not. Indeed, the Speaker in his ruling on Friday said that the appropriate mechanism was for a report to come from the committee and that would then be referred to the House, and then the House would decide, in this case the Speaker would decide whether there is a prima facie case, and then a motion is put to the House if indeed the Speaker decides it is a prima facie case.

That is the normal procedure for a matter of privilege. What this motion does is exactly what the Speaker said should be done on Friday. It is the first opportunity since that particular ruling, although any of the technical aspects of the matter of privilege would be dealt with by the House itself. The committee has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of privilege, but the reason this mechanism is put in place is to ensure that when breaches of privilege occur in committee there is some mechanism by which they can be considered, and that mechanism if for the committee to decide whether to report this matter, and Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for that to be reported then to the House.

If the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) and any other member of this committee wishes to oppose this matter being reported to the House, they need do one thing and one thing only and that is vote against this particular motion. I will be glad, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to debate the question of privilege. I would point out, by the way, there are specific citations in Beauchesne, Citation 64, of comments that were made in a particular case of an individual seated at his desk. These comments were the subject of a matter of privilege, and in fact, the member at that time was summoned to the bar to apologize, and that is outlined in Citation 64.

You know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is irrelevant at this point in time. The member is wishing that this matter be reported. It is the first opportunity since last Friday, but we have no jurisdiction at this committee to decide over the technical nature of it. The point is, it should be referred to the House which is the appropriate mechanism, and I would suggest we get on with it, have a vote and decide whether this matter be reported. That is the appropriate way to proceed. Question.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there any further debate? Is the committee ready for the question? The question before the committee, moved by the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli),

THAT the comments of the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) of Monday, June 13, to myself in the Committee of Supply, indicating "she needs a slap," that violated my privileges as a member of the Legislature be reported to the House and that, in accordance with the provisions of Beauchesne Citation 107, this committee recommend that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Voice Vote

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

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The motion is defeated.

Formal Vote

Mr. Ashton: I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Deputy Chairperson?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there a second member to request the‑‑the honourable member for Radisson seconds it.

We shall recess and go to the Chamber for a counted vote.

The committee recessed at 8:54 p.m.

After Recess

The committee resumed at 9:36 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates for the Status of Women. Does the honourable Minister responsible for the Status of Women have an opening statement?

Mrs. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Deputy Chair, it is my pleasure to introduce the Estimates for the Department of the Status of Women for the 1994‑95 fiscal year. As Minister responsible for the Status of Women, I would like to outline the accomplishments of the department during the past year and to present some of the goals and objectives for the coming year.

The department includes both the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council and the Manitoba Women's Directorate, each with an important role to play in the enhancement of the status of women in Manitoba. The advisory council is an arm's length body whose members are appointed by the government to represent the different geographical regions of the province. Council presents to government the concerns of women in the community and advises government on these issues.

Working to meet its goal and mandate of enhancing the status of Manitoba women, the advisory council has achieved the following. In response to the overwhelmingly positive response by Manitobans, council updated and reprinted the handbook "Just Me and the Kids" in consultation with women's organizations and agencies, which addresses the issues and concerns of single parenting. This edition, under the title "Parenting on Your Own: A Handbook for One‑Parent Families" has been dedicated in commemoration of the International Year of the Family.

In November 1993 the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council in partnership with the Junior League of Winnipeg and the Manitoba Women's Institute held a conference entitled "Damsels in Distress: A Manitoba Sequel". The 251 delegates in attendance from across Manitoba explored strategies for empowering young women to meet and to accept the challenges and opportunities of today's world. A healthy lifestyle, positive self‑image and education and career planning for young women were the themes explored in detail by conference delegates, speakers and facilitators.

Council continued to monitor health issues such as the new reproductive technologies, breast cancer, obstetrical services and others. Council was among those who brought to the attention of the Minister of Health the need for enhanced mammography service in rural Manitoba. As a result, in October 1993 the government announced a breast screening program with centres in Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson to offer regular screening for women between 50 and 70 years of age.

As a member of the provincial government's Task Force on Midwifery, the advisory council presented a number of recommendations to the government. The task force, chaired by Dr. Patricia Kaufert of the University of Manitoba, was made up of community and government representatives and organizations such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, the Faculty of Nursing, the Women's Health Clinic and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada.

The report of the task force was released on May 5, 1994, when the Minister of Health announced the establishment of a Midwifery Implementation Council which will oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the report. In response to overwhelmingly positive comments from the public about its collection of resource materials, council continues to develop its reference library. Increasing numbers of students are accessing council library materials and are requesting research guidance and support. Council continued to make photocopying and mailing assistance and the use of its board room available to nonprofit women's organizations. Council looks forward to another productive year. In keeping with its mandate, council will continue to distribute and make information available to Manitobans.

In addition to work done by Manitoba Women's Advisory Council, the Women's Directorate works to ensure that government programs have addressed the needs and concerns of women. The directorate carries out its mandate through the establishment of partnerships with other departments of government, other jurisdictions across Canada, community groups and other external organizations. The directorate is not involved in the direct delivery of services.

* (2140)

At this time, I would like to tell you about an important relationship which has developed between the Women's Directorate and a major employer in our province, Eaton's of Canada. In October 1993, Eaton's stores across the country highlighted the contributions of Canadian women during Women's History Month. In developing the Winnipeg Salute to Women's History, Eaton's approached the Women's Directorate, and together they developed a tribute to Canadian women that