At adjournment on Friday, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) had indicated he had not completed his advice to the Chair and that other members may also want to advise the Chair as to whether a prima facie matter of privilege existed. Therefore, I recognize the honourable member for St. Johns on the matter of privilege.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, just a few remarks in addition to the advice already offered to the Chair, just going back to briefly recap what took place.

At the beginning of the session and into the lottery went a resolution by the member for Broadway which stated as its important clause at the end: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to support legislation to elect the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba by secret ballot to ensure the Speaker's independence," of course following from events that took place in this House, regrettable events, in November, on the 28th and 29th. As well, we referenced other events in this House, for example, the Speaker's ruling on whether the phrase "racist policies of the government" were parliamentary or not.

What happened on Thursday was the Speaker got up at the beginning of private members' hour and made a ruling. The ruling was that this particular resolution was out of order because, during a matter of privilege early on in this session, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) had moved an amendment to a privilege motion which regarded the idea of electing a Speaker. As well, she referenced the fact that a bill was on the Order Paper regarding the issue of the election of a Speaker.

The points that I wanted to add are these. As one who took place in a debate in this House in the 1995 session in private members' hour, I distinctly recall the long debate that took place regarding amendments to the maintenance enforcement regime in this province. The legislation was introduced, was set down for debate and indeed the legislation was enacted and given Royal Assent. Then we came back for fall sittings, and during that fall sitting a private member's resolution introduced by the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) was on the Order Paper. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when that resolution was called for debate, the same Speaker sat there silently, allowing debate to take place, and we all took part willingly and eagerly, in fact, in that debate because it was a very important matter for Manitobans. That resolution talked and urged this House to commend the government for the action it took through its bill. No points of order were raised, and the matter was discussed for the period of one hour of private members' hour.

* (1335)

That is the kind of precedent we have in this House, and that is how Speakers in this House have exercised discretion in the past and that is how the Speaker of the day exercised her discretion at that time on a government resolution.

The other aspect I wanted to bring to the attention of the Chair is the fact that this resolution was known by the Speaker to be coming up on the Order Paper for some 23 days. On the day the resolution came up for debate in this House, you, Sir, were not in the Chair; the Speaker was in the Chair. The Speaker did not even have the respect for this House, the respect for her office and respect for the entrenched principle of even the appearance of impartiality of the Chair not to rule against a motion which concerned her own office and her as an individual.

That was shameful; it was a conflict of interest at its worst at a time in this House when I would think that the Speaker and indeed the government, because the opposition does, wants to move towards an Assembly where we can again have some trust in how it works.

But no, the Speaker ruled on a motion that affected her office and she herself. That is the disdain that she has for her office and this Assembly. There is a long series of precedents in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when a motion concerning the Speakership itself is raised and there is no confidence expressed in the Speaker either directly or indirectly in a matter, the Speaker will defer to the will of the House, will allow the matter to go to debate. This is a general observation. There may be certain exceptions to that general rule, but nowhere could that general rule be more applicable than in private members' hour when a matter is raised reflecting on the Speaker and looking at the Speakership as an office of this House. Yet the Speaker did not see fit to allow the matter to be debated--for one hour. It was going to go down to the bottom of the resolutions, one hour, that is all, on a matter that was essential to the operation of this Assembly in our view.

So, with those few remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we want to remind the Speaker, remind all members of this House that in our view--that is, the view deeply held by members of this side--the Speaker does not have the confidence of this House, at least of members of this side, does not in our view have the capability to carry on as Speaker, and in light of our view, that this House must move, as the majority of Legislatures in Canada have, to an elected Speaker, something that again is important to bring forward. This is not an issue that has disappeared into the past. This is very much a live issue, and when we see rulings like this where the Speaker has put herself in a conflict of interest, where she has shown again an inability to hold the position of Speakership, we say this must be a prima facie matter of privilege. It is one that must be considered. We must move towards an elected Speakership and so I certainly support the matter of privilege raised by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) and would urge the Chair, the Speaker to allow this matter to go to debate and to a vote of this House. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just wanted to add a few words of advice on this ruling on this matter of privilege. I think much has already been said, and I will just reinforce the importance of the fact that this happened during private members' hour. The government and the government members have many opportunities of bringing forward their issues, their agenda, through different vehicles, but private members' hour is an hour where members in opposition and all members have an opportunity of bringing resolutions forward to private member's bill and I think that in making a decision on this matter of privilege a lot of weight should be given to the fact that this happened during private members' hour.

I want to also mention that as a new House leader I appreciated my colleague the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) speaking first and putting our position forward. He has been House leader for a number of years and as a new House leader he probably did it much better than I could, but he also told me, the member for Inkster, that this is not the first time that Private Members' Business has been ruled out of order. He told me that when he brought forward a bill on housing, Speaker Rocan ruled it out of order because there was a government bill present, and so it shows that there is discretion called for by the Speaker.

To show the latitude that the Speaker has, we could use as an example from Beauchesne Section 491, that says "The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary." This cries out for discretion by the Speaker.

But having said that, the climate that has been created in this Chamber for a number of reasons makes it very difficult for the Speaker not to keep to the letter of the rules and the letter of the rule Section 31: "No member shall revive a debate already concluded during the session or anticipate a matter appointed for consideration of which notice has been given." That is the ruling that the Speaker referred to, and I am sure the Speaker got the best advice she could to rule on whether that resolution was in fact legitimate.

* (1340)

Probably, according to the very letter there would be a problem with that resolution but again it is private members' hour and the Speaker should have the discretion to allow it. I know that as a police officer, when you are accused of favouritism when arbitrating to two people, you cannot use as much discretion, so you go to the letter of the law. I think because of the climate that has been created in this Chamber, it is handicapping the Speaker to use common sense, yes, to use common sense and discretion for the good functioning of this Chamber, and we are spiralling down and down and down into less opportunities to allow the Speaker to do the job. But in this case I think the Speaker should have used discretion. This resolution should have been allowed, and I would ask the Speaker to consider this in her ruling.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Just briefly on the point of advice on the matter of privilege, and I, of course, rise on the point of privilege raised by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). One of the fundamental principles that we have stated time and time again, one of the fundamental principles of the rules of this Chamber is that all of our constituents are equal, and all 57 members in this Chamber, in terms of the rules of the Legislature and the privileges and responsibilities and rights of this Legislature, all of us are equal because our constituents are equal. Whether they have voted for a Conservative or a Liberal or a New Democrat, our constituents are all equal, and, therefore, we bring equal rights and responsibilities to this Chamber. In denying the private member's resolution last week, Mr. Deputy Speaker, again we see the pervasive decisions of the Speaker of the day denying the fundamental rights of each and every one of us to be equal members before the Chair, before the presiding officer in conducting the affairs of our constituents and our constituencies.

That is the essence of the issue of privilege here again today. It is not a question of whether we are spiralling up or spiralling down. It is a question of whether we are undermining, by decisions of the presiding officer, the roles and responsibilities of each and every one of us to represent our constituents in an equal way.

This is not the first time, as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) have pointed out, this has happened in this Chamber. The rights of all of us to stand on a point of privilege was the major issue of dispute when unilateral decisions were made by a presiding officer to treat one side of the House, that being the governing side of the House, in an unequal and an unfair way to proceed to votes contrary to any motion of closure that was lacking in the Chamber at the time. The decision on racist policy and racist language, the fact that we can call a policy of the federal government racist but a policy of previous and present and future provincial governments--that we can no longer as members of the Legislature represent our constituencies and say this policy is racist, again, is a role of the presiding officer to deny our responsibilities and duties as members, equal members in this Legislature.

It was a private member's resolution last week; it was the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) raising a private member's resolution before this Chamber. Now we have had private members' resolutions that have criticized even the government of the day from the government's own private member. We have had private members' resolutions that have had people on all sides vote even against government policies when it made sense for the constituents. We have had private members' resolutions, as late as last week, that had all-party concurrence. One was the Pan Am Games.

* (1345)

The right of a private member to bring forward matters on behalf of their constituents, I suggest to all members, is paramount, and I would hope that members opposite will vote for the rights of all private members and deal with the presiding officer in a way that starts to give rights back to all of us and all of our constituents on an equal basis. I would ask the presiding officer to take that into consideration on the legitimate point of privilege by the member for Broadway. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank honourable members for their advice on this matter. I will take it under advisement for Madam Speaker.