Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would stand on a matter of privilege if I may.

This is one of those rare occasions--in fact I cannot necessarily recall the last time I had abstained from voting in my previous nine and a half years inside the Chamber. I guess in most part I felt that it would not be appropriate for me to vote for a couple of reasons, one of those reasons being that I did not necessarily hear the articulation as to why or why not from either side of the Chamber. I also feel that this is an issue which has come up on numerous occasions in the past.

As I sat through a good portion of listening to the bells, I was not too sure in terms of if in fact Manitobans were being served in the best way they can because of the issues that have been surrounding something that has happened, and it happened quite a while ago, Madam Speaker. I think that there would have been more fruit, if you like, if in fact there was more debate on the throne speech, because there is a limited amount of time. In all likelihood, for example, not every member inside this Chamber will be provided that opportunity to speak because of that limited amount of time.

I was thinking in terms of how it is I would respond. I had one member of the media ask in terms of what are my thoughts and my position on what has happened and I did not know what to say to the member of the media. In fact it indicated that I wanted to spend some time just to think about it prior to giving an opinion. As I was thinking about it, more and more I felt that in fact I should be standing up today and addressing the Chamber in the form of a matter of privilege.

What I want to be able to do is to point out the MTS affair, if you like, and compare it to something else that occurred back in 1989. The reason why I am doing this is that today there might have been some merit in terms of some of the questions that were being posed from the opposition with respect to events that you would have attended or might have attended, Madam Speaker. There might have been some merit to that. But what I really want to focus my attention on is why it is that we are constantly challenging the Speaker to the extent of ringing the bells, it seems more often than not. Have in fact you been provided an opportunity to be a Speaker inside this Chamber from the official opposition?

Well, in my nine and a half years there have actually been two really significant incidences that have occurred. A number of members would not be aware of the first one because they were not here, and that was in the minority days when in fact I sat inside a committee room inside the Legislature. The Minister of Finance then, Mr. Manness, was talking about Repap and the sale of Repap. The Liberals were the official opposition, and how I long for those days, but we were the official opposition at the time. What happened was we were getting into the debate, Madam Speaker, when all of a sudden the Minister of Finance felt that it was no longer important for him to be there, and he just walked out of the committee room. The current Minister of Culture and Heritage is very familiar with this, because he was in fact the Chair of that particular committee and I am sure can relate to what it is that I am talking about.

* (1520)

An Honourable Member: The Speaker supported you.

Mr. Lamoureux: We took exception to--and I am going to get to that--we took great exception to the way in which this occurred. Imagine, if you will, a duly called meeting. A majority of the committee members wanted to continue on in the committee; yet, the Chair and the ministry decided to leave the committee room, thereby calling it to an end. We searched everywhere, and at that time we had fairly good research capabilities because of the resources. We did a thorough research in terms of where something of this nature might of even happened, anywhere in the parliamentary Commonwealth. Well, Madam Speaker, we found absolutely nothing that gave any sort of justification to what took place--and as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) points out, he is dead right. Shame. It was a shameful day for the Manitoba Legislature, and I really and truly believe that.

Madam Speaker, when I compare that incident to the incident of the MTS, both of those things, both of those incidents, were not in our glory days as Manitoba legislators, but when I try to draw the comparison, the only real thing that stands out--other than the obvious, as opposed to a chairperson it was the Speaker, which is a fairly significant difference in itself--is that we have to remember that we were operating under provisional rules back during the MTS affair.

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of things that occurred from both sides, and at one time we were in full support of what was happening. At other times, we accused the government of hiding behind the Speaker and so forth.

Now what I find more often than not whenever I am approached by members of the media is to try to have this balancing effect. You know, I do not want to come across as browning up to the Speaker or taking the sides with the government. I do not want to come across as being unfair, for I have been treated relatively fairly as a minority party inside this Chamber. So there have been areas in which for me it has been a fine line in wanting to do the right thing.

Well, Madam Speaker, I do believe very firmly that the previous incident, the walkout of the committee was never resolved. Privileges and Elections did in fact meet. It was supposed to discuss it; it never ever happened. I would suggest to you because there was no provisional rules, because there was no other agreement in place and so forth, that that is a fairly significant flaw in our tradition from within this Chamber.

I do not support it now, but I have got over it in the sense that I no longer raise the issue. It is in my mind, I am not going to forget about it, and I am pleased to be able to share it with other members because it was wrong then and hopefully it will never ever happen again. But I do not see the benefit of constantly bringing up the issue inside the Manitoba Legislature. I think what is important is that the record will clearly show what I have said is in fact quite accurate. You could read the pages and pages of Hansard, whether it was from Reg Alcock or from John Angus and I am sure even Sharon Carstairs, possibly even Jay Cowan, would have spoken on it. So it is there for us to be able to reflect on when things in the future--and hopefully it does not occur but if, in fact, it does.

Madam Speaker, I think the same needs to apply with respect to what happened with MTS. Like the New Democrats, I agree that the government should not have sold MTS. I think that was a mistake and, given the opportunity, that is what I would articulate in the next provincial election. I look at how it actually transpired, and I disagree in many parts in different ways with what occurred last November. I do believe it was a good learning experience not only for me but for all members of this Chamber. I think that as a result of what has occurred that we will grow from that. I believe that to be the case because equally there were members that were not here during the committee affair.

In future years, there will be MLAs that were not around for the MTS affair and that issue will be brought up. It is not going to be something that is going to be forgotten, but one has to start questioning why it is that it is in fact constantly being brought up in a format that takes away from other debates within the Chamber, given the limitations of debate that we have inside the Chamber. I think by doing that, we are not able to address the many different issues, allowing other members to be able to stand up, whether it is the throne or by chance the throne did come to an end prematurely in terms of debate because of a lack of interest to speak, well, there would be more things that would be brought onto the table for debate.

Strategically and from a tactical point of view, at times there is a need to allow for bells to ring. I do not necessarily see the one that is there today. I want to be able, as I indicated at the beginning, to respect the fact that the New Democrats brought up some valid points in Question Period. Madam Speaker, I think that there is some merit to it, but what I would suggest that we really need to do is to start talking about exactly what role the Speaker has to play. We are talking about electing a Speaker, and I think that is a positive thing. I hope that in fact we will have an elected Speaker at some point in time, the sooner the better as far as I am concerned, but the role of the Speaker needs to be talked about.

From what I understand, for example, the Speaker in Saskatchewan attends caucus meetings intersessionally. That is from what I understand. I had asked our research to look into what happens in B.C., what happens when a Speaker needs to confer or to consult with the minister, and fortunately, even with our limitations, I was able to get somewhat of a response on that. Andy from our research indicates that in B.C. the Speaker will not venture into the space used by members of Executive Council. When constituency issues or the need arises for discussion with ministers, the government ministers head to the Speaker's office. The Speaker in B.C. is also provided with his own dining room. Meetings with government ministers take place there or in committee rooms. Private meetings are not uncommon. No one in the B.C. Speaker's office knows when this rule was started, but it has been accepted practice for some time.

* (1530)

Well, Madam Speaker, the reason why I bring that up is because I do not think Beauchesne's is as clear as it could be on this particular issue. In fact, what I would suggest to you is that we need to look not only at having an elected Speaker, but we also need to know what sort of rules need to be taken into consideration in terms of the actions that a Speaker may or may not take without putting at risk, compromising the Chair.

When I talk about compromising the Chair, Madam Speaker, that is ultimately the reason why I felt that it was important that I stand up today, because I have in the past shown considerable support for the Chair. To date I am still prepared to give that support to the Chair, and I say that to my friends in the New Democratic Party. I do not say that because I am hoping to be able to achieve more through the Speaker's Chair. I can tell them I had to fight for what I have and I am still trying to fight. I still believe that it is three independents because as a caucus you can determine who can stand up when for members' statements, for Question Period, that we do have very strong limitations. I still argue today with you, as you know, in terms of that we need to have more rights inside this Chamber, because, again, I believe that we do need to have more rights, that at times you have to acknowledge the need to change that status quo.

So in summation, I guess what I would say, Madam Speaker, is that there is the need for us to look at what role the Speaker should be playing in the future in the Province of Manitoba which includes having the elected role and which also includes what limitations that that Speaker should have in place.

I would also appeal to all members, in particular members of the New Democratic Party, that we have learned, I believe, from what occurred in the past, but maybe it is time that we move ahead, Madam Speaker, in trying to deal with what is obviously important and in order to allow for more time on debate of many other issues.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

In the responses that we give to the throne speech, we can talk about the problems as we saw them that occurred last November. We can continue to bring up MTS all we want, but surely to goodness there is a better way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do have a motion that I want to be able to move because, always wanting to be constructive, I would like to be able to see meetings occur. The last time I had a meeting with the Speaker's office was with my two other colleagues, and we talked about our rights going into the session. [interjection] At what point in time? I say this with all honesty. She was defending the New Democrats' rights, saying, well, they should anticipate some sort of changes in Question Period, that I should not be taking it for granted. We had taken the line that, look, no, Madam Speaker, you should not be taking away rights from us. We will c.c. it and let us see if the government House leader or the opposition House leader respond negatively; and, if they respond negatively, then I will take it up with whomever it is that has responded negatively. So, again, I have to worry about rights being taken away from us on occasion but not to fear in the sense that I, along with the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), will continue to articulate as to what is important in terms of rights of individuals who are in our current situation, because that is very, very important to us.

What I hope is that in fact the opposition House leader and the government House leader (Mr. McCrae)--I understand that they do not meet very often with the Speaker; I am not too sure when the last time is that they actually met--but we need to see, we are not prepared--[interjection] Well, again, I was sympathetic to your questions today, but you also have to take into consideration that there is that need to look at the rules. Like Glenn Hagel, whom I have a deep amount of respect for, the Speaker out in Saskatchewan, from what I understand meets in caucus intersession with the New Democrats. You know, this is in fact what I am told. I trust that will be confirmed one way or another. We do need to look at it, and you raise a very good point. [interjection] But, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party says, I am starting to be somewhat repetitive, so I will leave it at that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I would move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that the Speaker convene a meeting of the House leaders and a representative of the independent member caucus intersessionally to resolve the issues facing the Speaker's Chair.

Motion presented.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may be in some difficulty with my Leader because I know we talked at our convention about hugging Liberals, but I would suggest to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that, if he wants to start some consensus, he might want to start with his own caucus. Indeed, this is the same caucus that on MTS voted on a key matter that was before this House in which one voted for and one voted against and one abstained. I think we have seen some of the explanation of that logic today. I have seen very important matters trivialized in this House before, but for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) I think to suggest that someone call a meeting and that is going to solve the problem I think is trivializing the root cause of the problem, and that is that we have no confidence in the Speaker. We have had no confidence in the Speaker since 1996. We will never have confidence in this Speaker.

I appreciated the member for Inkster's rather twisting and turning version of life as he sees it, but I still do not see any indication yet of the fact that we in this House do not have confidence in this Speaker.

I would appreciate I think from the member if he would recognize why that has occurred. We saw one of the biggest bills in Manitoba history pass through this Legislature when every single rule in the book was broken by the Speaker. We have clear evidence. We are going to be checking further evidence despite the rather foggy memory of the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) as seen earlier in Question Period. We have clear evidence that the Speaker sees no problem in attending government-sponsored meetings, policy meetings, whether it be on education or committees of cabinet. It is just unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

* (1540)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members that want to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge. I am having great difficulty, and I am trying to get some evidence on whether I should deal with this now or take it under advisement. So the honourable member for Thompson, to continue.

Mr. Ashton: I find it unfortunate that we are in a position having to deal with a motion that is before this House that fails to recognize the root cause of the problem. We have not had Speakers in the parliamentary system that have been spokespeople for the government and previously the Crown since the Plantagenet and Tudor times. That was the last time in history. We are talking now about 500 years ago. At that time, the Speaker was seen as the mouthpiece of the Crown, and anybody who is aware of parliamentary history will remember the courageous act of the Speaker of the day that refused to dismiss Parliament when requested by the king of the day, refused--the beginning of the impartiality of the Speaker's office. It amazes me.

I had the opportunity this summer to actually go to Runnymede, which is where the Magna Carta was signed, which was the beginning of the parliamentary system.

I think after seeing what has happened today, and particularly the comments by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that what we need is to educate members of this House, particularly on the Conservative benches, and I would not suggest necessarily all the Liberals, because I still have some hope on the Liberal side of what the basis of parliamentary democracy is. It is separation first and foremost between the Crown and Parliament, and that can only be achieved when Parliament has rights and when those rights are enforced through the respect and enforcement of our rules by an impartial and objective Speaker.

If anybody doubts what can happen when that is taken away from a Parliament, just look at what has happened in this House since 1996. I find it absolutely amazing that today, in December of 1997, earlier today we dealt with a matter of privilege that was raised in this House November 23, 1996. It is interesting, because we are not only in the next session, we are in the next, next session.

I do not know why the Speaker of the House did not come up with a ruling in the previous session. I mean, how long did it take to research a one-and-a-half-page ruling? We did not sit between June and just a few days ago. I know we have a hard-working Clerk's office, an office of the Legislative Assembly, but surely this could have been researched and brought back to the House, I would have suggested, probably immediately after the ruling was made. It was a matter of privilege.

I find it amazing that when we rise on a matter of privilege in this House, we have to establish that it is raised at the first opportunity. Then we have to establish a prima facie case. Does nobody on the Conservative benches understand that there is something bizarre when we get rulings that are made a year and some days later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, some of those members have sat in opposition, and if they keep up with this arrogant and smug attitude will sit again in opposition very soon. I could imagine the howl and I look to some members. Well, I will not mention them by name. I will not, but they know of what I speak because there are members on the other side who have been in government and in opposition. They have been around. They will probably be around full circle again because they know they are survivors, and I think they have survived because they understand Parliament. At least in their heart of hearts they do.

Does somebody not see why we are so frustrated? It is not just a question of partiality anymore; it is a question of competence. To the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), what are we going to do as House leaders--and this is a new, I am not sure how to describe the three members who were elected as Liberals. I, by the way, have always respected that while they may not be a recognized party, that they are Liberals. I am not sure what the Hansard states today because one of them was a Liberal, two of them were listed as independent Liberals. Now I think it is two Liberals and one independent Liberal, and the member for Inkster talked about the caucus of independents.

I do not know what they do in terms of meetings anymore, but I respect them as members of the House, but how do they expect us to sit down with the Speaker? How many times have we had to bring matters of no confidence in the Speaker? What are we supposed to do, sit down and eat cookies and drink tea and then discuss the House as if nothing happened?

What planet are we living on here? We have no confidence in the Speaker. I can tell you I have not had any meeting with the Speaker now for more than a year. I would suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that knowing the feeling in our caucus and of many Manitobans about what happened in 1996, that should come as no surprise. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than having a motion of the House now that suggests we call a meeting. If there is a meeting called by the Speaker we will not attend, because we do not have any confidence left in the Speaker. How many times do we have to say that?

Now, I say to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) again, I thought there were some encouraging signs in his statements, and, by the way, I do want to credit at least one member of this House I think who showed some real honesty earlier, and courage, and that is the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman). I mean, he was asked a straight question and he gave a straightforward answer. I respect that. The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), I have to be careful because I do not want to transpose my remarks to leave any unparliamentary impression, but I can tell you, if he does not remember who shows up at his meetings of the Urban Affairs committee of cabinet, boy, he has more problems than we thought he had.

And the twisted logic of the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh)--they do not get it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Speaker's office is not an additional cabinet member. I mean, how many times do we have to read from Beauchesne, from Erskine May? It is fundamental. It is absolutely fundamental to the parliamentary system. The chief characteristics attached to the office of the Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. That is from Beauchesne. Erskine May, which references the route British parliamentary tradition: The chief characteristics attached to the office of the Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. The impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition to the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that his, and I might add her, impartiality is generally recognized.

It is not just that the Speaker does not speak in this House. That is a given. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Speaker does not vote in this House. It extends to cabinet committees. I say to government members opposite, rhetorically through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have they been in office so long that they do not see the root problem with having the Speaker of the House sit in cabinet committees? What I referenced earlier, just think of the logic here. I mean by their definition, and we suspect this may have actually even happened, there would be no problem with the Speaker sitting in on a cabinet committee on House strategy, particularly if they were dealing with MTS. Think about it. Why not have the Speaker attend cabinet meetings? It might make communication a lot easier the next time the Premier tells the Speaker of the House what to do. Think about it for a moment. There are some members opposite--oh, I know in your heart of hearts--they know that this is the most flagrant abuse that we have seen of any Speaker.

I was concerned when I saw the Speaker's picture as part of the Conservative caucus that went out on a Conservative Party ad, but, okay, you know, it was a picture and perhaps the Speaker socializes with members of the Conservative caucus, you know, social events. That is not a problem. I am sure the Speaker may do that as well. Think about it for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what do we have left of a parliamentary democracy in this Legislature if we have the Speaker of the House seen as nothing more than another member of the Conservative caucus?

I noticed with interest--I thought the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) nearly gave it away. He said that the committee was open to all con members of Urban Affairs. I was thinking "con." Con what? Would this be cons? Conservatives? Cons? Well, I guess, in Saskatchewan, cons and conservative do mean the same thing, but it may be unparliamentary to suggest that here. I wonder if the minister opposite actually watched all those Watergate hearings, because about the only thing he did not do was say "let me make this perfectly clear." Because you know in that fog, I think we know the answer. We know that the Speaker attended the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet. The Speaker attended the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet.

* (1550)

I ask members opposite to put themselves in the shoes of being members of the opposition--and I say to the Minister of Urban Affairs, you know, you may get this chance before you realize and I want to see what your reaction would be, because I heard members saying, oh, an MLA cannot deal with that. You know, Speakers have always dealt with items related to constituents, always. In fact, in 1986, it was recognized that Speakers do have a role as members of the Legislature when an assistant was provided to the Speaker, something that continues to this day, so that they can deal with constituency concerns.

That does not mean that they then go and sit on cabinet committees. No, the leaps of logic on the other side are unbelievable. Same with the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), does she not get it? Well, she probably does not actually, but does she not see that when she is sitting there with students? What is she discussing, the weather? She is discussing government policy. You know why we were aware of this? Because some of the students who attended that meeting understood something the government did not. I do not know if they were political studies students or just that many of the students are very aware of what is happening in politics and the political system. But you know the university students who were there understood something that the Minister of Education did not. I think if we have compulsory testing in this province, it might be with the Minister of Education rather than with students.

But think about it for a moment, and I say this to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), you know, when do we draw the line? When do we draw the line between the Speaker and partiality? I say that line has been long crossed. Now I want to indicate, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be reviewing the transcripts from today, the Hansards. I want to determine exactly what was said earlier in Question Period, because I feel there may be a far more important matter to deal with in the matter that the member for Inkster brings forward.

But I would suggest to you in conclusion that the member for Inkster does not have a matter of privilege. I would suggest the only matter of privilege that would have been appropriate coming from the Liberals would have been a matter similar to matters we have raised time and time again in this House pointing out that we have no confidence in the Speaker. I do not know what it is going to take before the member for Inkster--[interjection] I do not speak for the other Liberal members and I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) who has been critical of some of our views understood our concern today. But I do not know how many more times we have to go through this.

This is not about something that is frivolous. This is root. This goes to the root of our ability in this House to represent our constituents. I represent 58 percent of the people in the province who did not vote Conservative in the last election. You know, this is not a Legislature that is an extension of the Conservative caucus. We will never allow it to become an extension of this Conservative caucus, and the way we are going to do that is by continuing to push for a Speaker in this House. I look at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I note, having seen you function in this House, that--and I want this on the record, too, because this is not partisan--as we did before with the previous Speaker, having an initial affiliation with a political party does not prevent someone such as yourself from doing a commendable job, for being very impartial. I want to put that on the record because it is not about any frustration we have with Conservative Speakers. There are Conservative Speakers who have been, and Deputy Speakers, who continue to be impartial. All we ask is the ability to have a Speaker who is impartial. Thank you.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak in support of the motion brought by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would just like to advise the minister that I am just taking advice at this time. You are not speaking to the motion. You are giving me advice on whether I should bring this to debate.

Mr. Toews: Thank you very much for that direction.

I certainly would like to advise that we should be supporting this particular motion brought by the member for Inkster. I think in this particular situation, the member for Inkster in fact has shown that he is a consensus builder.

I note with some regret the comments of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the way in which he expressed his comments, his emphatic statement that he and his caucus would not attend any type of a meeting that would be brought forward by all the House leaders as well as a representative of the independent members' caucus. I think that is quite unfortunate. I think that the conduct in this House over the last number of days has demonstrated that we in fact do require some type of forum.

We know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that past Speakers appointed by NDP governments have attended government caucuses and in fact cabinet meetings. We know that the present practice in such provinces as Saskatchewan, where there is an NDP government, the Speaker regularly attends caucus and cabinet meetings. So I think this is an issue among others that need to be discussed, and if in fact there is some dispute over whether or not the Speaker from Saskatchewan attends both caucus and cabinet meetings, that is an appropriate issue to discuss at the type of forum recommended by the member for Inkster. This is an issue that does need to be discussed, and I think it clearly shows the leadership of the member for Inkster in attempting to have the House resolve an outstanding problem.

So I certainly support the motion and the sentiments brought to this House in the form of the motion by the member for Inkster.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, in response to the motion brought by the honourable member for Inkster, I think it would be safe to say that honourable members on this side of the House would be prepared to waive the kinds of requirements that I have no doubt you were about to talk about with respect to a question of privilege. I think that strictly applied rules in this case might cause a valuable motion like this one to fail, and I do not want that to happen. So I would say that we on this side of the House are quite willing to waive any rules that require certain tests--[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. McCrae: Something that happens on a daily basis in this House in order to help with the business of the House is that members on all sides of the House from time to time waive various rules and requirements in order to get the business done, and honourable members in the New Democratic Party tend to want to disrupt again my opportunity to have a word on a topic of very great importance to honourable members in the New Democratic Party if you believe what they tell you. So I would appreciate it if they would let me finish my comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I am suggesting in the spirit put forward by the honourable member for Inkster to get serious and to get some resolution to some of the things that are bothering members around here is that, in order for us to do what is suggested in the motion, we would need to waive the requirement of the kind of urgency that is called for under a question of privilege that would be required, and so we would waive that.

* (1600)

The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in his motion suggests that there be a meeting of House leaders and a representative of the independent members of this House in order to discuss and, hopefully, resolve issues. I understand from the comments of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that he does not want to resolve the issues. He does not want to have such a meeting. He and his colleagues want to carry on a personal vendetta that gets in the way of doing the business of the people of this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Rather than putting forward any forward thinking or coming up with any constructive suggestions for the business of the people of this province, members of the New Democratic Party choose instead to engage in personal attacks on people. That is what is going on around here. There is a total dearth of any constructive suggestion. They obviously want to talk about their vendetta every day rather than talk about what is contained in the throne speech. They have done this before, by the way, when we have had--they have absolutely no policy, no alternative policy to offer to the people of Manitoba, so daily they take their place in this Chamber and kick up as much fuss as they can. It is convenient to go after the Speaker of the Legislature. It is an easy thing for them to do.

I know, I heard someone say a little while ago that members of this side, some of us, have had the opportunity to sit in the opposition, and it is a fact. I remember very well 1986 coming here as a new member and learning very quickly--

An Honourable Member: You even got kicked out.

Mr. McCrae: I even got kicked out as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) points out. I do not hold that against the presiding officer of the day, but I had certain impressions of that particular presiding officer, one Myrna Phillips. Honourable members know what those impressions were, and they know very well why, and they sit in their places today mostly from their seats, but one or two of them on the floor of this House, making suggestions about the present occupant of the Chair of this House. The more things do not change, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems the more things do not change.

But I do believe the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is on to something here. [interjection] That is right. Well, I have got another one for you if you did not like that one. I will share it with you privately. It says something like things are more like they are today than they have ever been before in history, and I think there is some truth in that. I invite honourable members to contemplate that.

Quite seriously, the honourable member for Inkster I believe is trying to create an atmosphere or rebuild an atmosphere in this House where we can get some orderly work done, and he suggests that we get together with the Speaker and iron out some of our differences. What a great idea--

An Honourable Member: Oh, let us have cookies and cake, and let us forget anything ever happened.

Mr. McCrae: Well, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is in a very awkward position, because it is an entirely reasonable proposition and because such a meeting might tend to put the New Democrats on the spot and make them have to search in their souls and come up with the right kinds of answers so that we can go forward and do the real work of the people. They do not want that to happen; then they would not have a vendetta they could carry on anymore. That is why they are going to oppose what the honourable member for Inkster is talking about, while I and my colleagues would support the approach suggested by the honourable member for Inkster. That is why I thought it was necessary for me to say I think we need to waive the rules in order to do what this motion suggests under a question of privilege.

If this should fail for whatever reason and if the honourable member wants to put a notice on the Order Paper for such a meeting to happen, I and my colleagues would be only too happy to entertain it and indeed to agree with it. Why will the NDP not? Why do they not want to sit down like normal, reasonable people and discuss our differences? Let them answer that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the meantime, I am with the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and so are my colleagues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Normally I would have already said I have enough information. I am going to hear from one more member here.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will just be very short in my comments. I was just reading a book here, and it refers to a quote by Sir Robert Borden. I do not know what his--members here may know his party affiliation.

Well, regardless of it, his words belong to no party. In the highest ideal party government, two parties unite in generous rivalry for the service of the state, and a rivalry should be generous, but at all times the ultimate purpose should be service to the province of Manitoba.

Now, I am on leave from the police force. I may return for the police force but, in the time that I am in this Chamber, I would like to debate important issues, I would like to contribute what I can, and I would like to move on. I feel that my privileges as a member to do that are being hampered by keeping bringing forward this subject--[interjection] No, the motion was a way of finally resolving this.

The official opposition, from the time the Speaker was appointed, made comments about how they were disappointed that Speaker Rocan did not continue. So right from the outset they had a bias against the present Speaker, and then they use that bias now, and that is fine, people can have biases, but now it is interfering with my privileges. I was looking so forward, this is the session of the Legislature that I was looking forward to more than any other, because I was going to listen more carefully than I ever have to the Throne Speech Debate. I wanted to hear the opposition members. I wanted to hear what they had to say about the throne speech to help me decide how to vote. I wanted to hear very carefully, but what are we doing? On and on and on about the Speaker, holding us back from doing the business of government, and I am tired of it. We should be moving on and dealing with the business.

So I support the motion brought forward, and I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my advice to you is that we should proceed with it so this issue could be resolved. If people can get together--they make fun and said, do you want to get together for milk and cookies in the Speaker's office? Well, do you know what? Generous rivalry in a statesmanly way would be a way to deal with this. They want to form government next time. Well, let us show them, do it in a way that they could get together with people to resolve situations, instead of continually this partisan way with their vendetta against the Speaker, interfering with our doing the business of government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A matter of privilege is a very serious matter, and I do not take them lightly, and I know that honourable members do not. I would prefer to take it under advisement, but I am willing to see if there is a will of the House to debate it at this time.

Is it the will of the House to debate this at this time?

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know the government House leader indicated on the record he has no problem with waiving the rules. We in the opposition are quite aware of that, but I do not believe this is a legitimate matter of privilege. I would like to hear your ruling on that. [interjection] It is not a matter of shame, I think if the government House leader would care to listen on that.

But the matter made reference to this House calling for a meeting, which is not a matter of privilege, first of all, and second of all is avoiding the reality of the fact that we have stated very clearly on the record that we do not have any more confidence in this Speaker. It is not a question of personalities; it is based on her actions in this House.

I would appreciate your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this matter, and until that time I would suggest you either make the ruling or take it under advisement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson for that. At this time, I am not prepared to make a ruling, so I will be taking it under advisement and reporting back to the House.