Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House.

I took under advisement on November 25, 1996, a matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) about my ruling of November 21, 1996, respecting the timing of votes on Bill 67.

There are three conditions to be met in order for a Speaker to find that there is a prima facie evidence of a matter of privilege. First, was the matter raised by the honourable member for St. Johns at the earliest opportunity?

I believe that November 25 was indeed his first opportunity, because after I had delivered the ruling on November 21, the House considered a matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and then adjourned. The House then did not meet until November 25.

The second condition for a matter to proceed is that the member raising a matter of privilege must provide the House with a reparation or remedy. The honourable member did propose a motion that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, so the second condition has been complied with.

The third condition to be met is that sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of the privileges of the House has occurred. I must find that the third condition has not been met. My ruling of November 21 was challenged but sustained by the House on a recorded vote. Immediately thereafter the honourable member for Thompson rose on a matter of privilege that was a nonconfidence motion in the presiding officer, and that matter arose directly from my November 21 ruling, and that nonconfidence motion was defeated on a recorded vote that day.

The November 20 ruling has already been challenged and sustained twice. In reading the comments of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) when he raised this matter of privilege on November 25, I can locate no substantially different perspectives in his arguments than those which had been put forward by the official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Ashton) on November 21 when he raised a matter of privilege.

Citation 558 in Beauchesne, which is based on a statement by the parliamentary authority Sir John Bourinot, states "'That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.' Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session."

The decision of Speaker Graham of April 15, 1981, in a similar matter is also I believe a relevant Manitoba precedent. Because no new evidence was presented to the House between November 21 and 25, I must rule that the motion of the honourable member for St. Johns does not meet the requirements of a matter of privilege and must be ruled out of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, this ruling was based on a matter of privilege that was raised November 25, 1996, and therefore I would like, on behalf of our caucus, to challenge this incompetent ruling.

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

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, 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 Yeas have it.

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 28, Nays 20.

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