Madam Speaker: Late last evening, the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) rose on a point of order and stressed the urgency of bringing that point of order to the House. I have a ruling for the House.

On November 26, the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) raised a point of order about the entitlement of the House to three Opposition Days. In raising the point of order, he referenced my earlier ruling that Thursday, November 28, would be the last day of the fall sitting. He also argued that the government House leader (Mr. Ernst), according to the provisional rules, is to announce Opposition Days and has not announced the third such day. The House, the opposition House leader claimed, was precluded from its entitlement to that third Opposition Day due to the business scheduled for the House on November 27 and November 28, as set out in my ruling given to the House on November 21.

I have carefully reviewed Rule 22 which is the rule respecting Opposition Day motions. Subrule 22.(1) reads, "In each session there shall be up to 3 sitting days to be known as Opposition Days, but not more than 2 such days shall be scheduled in either the spring or the fall sittings." While it is true that the House has only had two Opposition Days, the rule is clear that there shall be up to three sitting days to be known as Opposition Days. There is no guarantee that there would be three such days.

* (1335)

Also, subrule 22.(3) reads, "After consultation with the Recognized Opposition Parties, the Government House Leader, from time to time, will announce the date or dates which are to be designated Opposition Days." It is clear from this rule that the designation of Opposition Days is the responsibility of the government House leader. The rules are explicit about the process to be followed for Opposition Days.

The opposition House leader indicated in raising his point of order that he saw a gap in the rules. I must advise the House that I do not see a gap. Although the rules allow for a maximum of three Opposition Days, they do not require that three Opposition Days be held. The opposition House leader, therefore, does not have a point of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, it is clear we have one set of rules for the government and one set of rules for the opposition. I challenge your ruling.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

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

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader has requested a recorded vote. Call in the members.

Order, please. In accordance with Rule 12(3), I am requesting that the bells be turned off. The one hour has expired.

* (1440)

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

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

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

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 30, Nays 24.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, from time to time in this House, we have had the rulings of Speakers dealing with displays of various kinds in the House. I can remember being in the House here when people have brought in bags of peanuts, when they have brought in all kinds of different things, and Speaker Rocan, I believe, ruled the question of--

Mr. Ashton: I rise on a matter of privilege, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader was recognized for a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, a matter of privilege takes precedence over all matters including points of order. I rise on a matter of privilege which will be followed by a motion, and I can show, if the question is precedence, from the House of Commons where clearly a matter of privilege takes precedence over all other matters before the House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I was in the process of hearing the honourable government House leader on a point of order, and I recognize that procedurally a matter of privilege takes precedence over, but--[interjection] Order, please. I have been advised that never has an individual been interrupted when they have been recognized to speak prior to recognizing someone on a matter of privilege.

I will deal with the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, and then the member will be recognized to deal with his matter of privilege.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I have precedents from the House of Commons where a matter of privilege has been raised on a point of order, and I want to have the assurance that given the kind of unprecedented tactics we have seen in the House today that you will not prevent me from moving into the matter of privilege prior to bringing in any kind of vote or other proceeding, legal or illegal. I want a guarantee. Are you indicating that I will be given that opportunity following the point of order?

Madam Speaker: I indicated that I would hear the honourable government House leader's point of order.

The honourable government House leader.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, in terms of the--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a matter of privilege, you stated you would hear a matter of privilege. I want you to rule on whether you will recognize me to be able to exercise my right to raise a matter of privilege. You stated in your ruling that I would be recognized after that. You have not stated that on your second ruling.

Will you guarantee that I will be able to move that matter of privilege, in which case, we are prepared to hear the matter of order but only if the matter that should take precedence, the matter of privilege, is allowed? I demand my rights as a member of this Legislature.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that according to our rules, Beauchesne Citation 168, when the Speaker is standing to give a ruling, all members should be seated.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, you should reflect on Beauchesne Citation 29 which gives precedence for a matter of privilege over all business before the House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 2:45 p.m., in accordance with my ruling of November 21 which was sustained by the House, I am interrupting the proceedings to put the question on the report stage amendment currently before the House. Therefore, the question before the House--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Therefore, the question before the House is the motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)

THAT Bill 67 be amended by renumbering section 12 as subsection 12(1) and by adding the following as subsections 12(2) and (3):

Operations within Manitoba

12(2) The corporation shall ensure that its senior executives reside in Manitoba and that all accounting, finance, marketing, administration and personnel functions and substantially all of its other operations are maintained in the province.

Restrictions on contracting out

12(3) The corporation shall not contract out to a person who is not a resident of the province, as defined in subsection 16(3), any services that on the day before this section comes into force are normally performed by the predecessor corporations or their employees.

[French version]

Il est proposé d'amender le projet de loi 67 par substitution, au numéro d'article 12, du numéro de paragraphe 12(1), et par adjonction de ce qui suit:

Opérations au Manitoba

12(2) La Société veille à ce que ses cadres supérieurs résident au Manitoba et que toutes les fonctions comptabilité, gestion financière, commercialisation, administration et gestion du personnel ainsi que la quasi-totalité de ses autres opérations soient maintenues dans la province.

Sous-traitance

12(3) La Société ne peut donner en sous-traitance à une personne qui n'est pas un résident de la province, au sens du paragraphe 16(3), des services qui, à l'entrée en vigueur du présent article, sont normalement assurés par les sociétés remplacées ou leurs employés.

Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, 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.

* (1450)

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

* (1550)

Madam Speaker: The hour has expired. I would request that the doors be closed.

The question before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)

THAT Bill 67 be amended by renumbering section 12 as subsection 12(1) and by adding the following as subsections 12(2) and (3):

Operations within Manitoba

12(2) The corporation shall ensure that its senior executives reside in Manitoba and that all accounting, finance, marketing, administration and personnel functions and substantially all of its other operations are maintained in the province.

Restrictions on contracting out

12(3) The corporation shall not contract out to a person who is not a resident of the province, as defined in subsection 16(3), any services that on the day before this section comes into force are normally performed by the predecessor corporations or their employees.

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

Gaudry, Lamoureux.

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 2, Nays 30.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, to resume my point of order which was interrupted earlier by your call--

Mr. Ashton: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I ask you, I ask you as calmly as I can. I am standing. I have a right to be recognized. Please, will you recognize me?

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: I am a member of this Legislature. I have been standing. I have attempted to obtain your recognition. Will you please at least look at me, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have not even given the statement regarding the vote.

Mr. Ashton: That is right. You just recognized the government House leader.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that all members resume sitting until such time as the vote has been recorded.

Mr. Ashton: You recognized the government House leader, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment is accordingly defeated.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, to resume my point of order, before the vote was taken, Madam Speaker, I had a--

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, we have procedures in this House when members do not vote who are present in the House to indicate why they did not vote. We always allow for that following the tabling of the vote. I would ask to be recognized.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member must be recognized, according to Beauchesne.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I have been here 15 years. Every time there is a vote, members are recognized following the vote if they wish to explain why they were in the Chamber and they did not vote. All I am asking for is to be recognized. I have rights as a member of this Legislature like all 57 members.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader has been recognized to speak.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, to continue my point of order, the fact of the matter is that we are not in this House permitted displays of a variety of kinds, and that display is of a variety going back to like I remember when the former member for Gladstone had the member opposite please bring in, brought in a bag of peanuts and was distributing those peanuts around in the--

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, on a matter of privilege. You do not see me over there or anyone else. I am here now.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I have been attempting to be recognized as well. We are members of this Legislature. You are required to recognize members of this Legislature on a matter of privilege.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable members know full well that they cannot be recognized if they are not in their seats.

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, I have a right to speak to the matter before the House. I am on the Order Paper. I have 19 minutes remaining. I have a matter of privilege and this--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member for St. Johns to take his seat, or I will have no other option than to name the honourable member for St. Johns.

Mr. Mackintosh: If I take my seat, Madam Speaker, you will not be recognizing me, will you, or will you? Answer my question.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns has been requested to take his seat.

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, I am here on a matter of privilege. I insist, as do the members on the other side, as do our constituents. You have no right to disregard the north end and West Kildonan, the people I represent, all the people--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, to complete his point of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a matter of privilege, Madam Speaker. I am scheduled to speak on the matter that you thought this House voted on. That was an illegal vote, and I have every right to speak to that matter. I have 19 minutes remaining. The matter before this House is regarding a very important issue.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, with respect to my point of order, before members opposite, their unruly behaviour has not allowed me to present my point of order, but the fact of the matter is that demonstrations of a variety of kinds are not permitted in this House. Those demonstrations are not permitted in this House. Earlier this month, we had members opposite holding up signs in this House which are strictly not permitted. We had members of the public draping banners over the side of the Chamber. Those are also not permitted in this House. Any kind of demonstration, any kind of prop or other activity in this House, is not permitted.

* (1600)

Madam Speaker, earlier today, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) had attached to his microphone a pair of miniature boxing gloves. Now those, I think, probably are demonstrating the activities and the mood of the members opposite. They are continuing to raise issues with respect to violence. The threats coming from members opposite here in this House towards you, towards members on this side, are shameful because that kind of thing--we had the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) rising on a point of order, dealing with the question of violence in this Chamber. They are exhibiting the kind of behaviour, the kind of threats, the kind of activity that they are proposing which is absolutely unacceptable in this Chamber.

But the fact of the matter is the member for--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being after 4 p.m., in accordance with my ruling of November 21 which was sustained by the House, I am interrupting the proceedings to consider the report stage concurrence motion.