Manitoba Hansard — 13 December 1982 (Sitting 8A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-8a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. SA - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 13 DECEMBER, 1982. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. {Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CAR ROLL, O.C., Henry N. CORRIN , Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIE DGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOU RLAY, D.M. {Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Har ry M. HARPER, Elijah HE MPH ILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHN STON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING , Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MER CIER, O.C., G.W.J. {Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, O.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT , Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STOR IE, Je rry T. URU SKI, Hon. Bill USK IW, Hon. Samuel WALDIN G, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rh ineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Ki ldonan Arthur Emerson Lake side Brandon East River East Tuxedo Cor.cordia Swan River Virden Kirk field Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prai rie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Nia kwa Rad isson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Robli n-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gla dstone Pembina Selkir k Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountai n Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Height s Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NDP NOP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 13 December, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPEN ING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Peti- tions Rea ding and Receiv ing Petit ions . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commit- tees . Ministerial Statem ents and Tabl ing of Reports . Notices of Motion IN TRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 18 , The Legisla tive Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act -

Loi sur les conflits d'interets des mem bres de l'assemblee legislative et du conseil executif: and Bill No. 19 , The Survivorship Act -

Loi sur les presomptions de survie. HON. A. ADAM introduced Bill No. 21,

An Act to amend The Municipal Act. IN TRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Or al Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Gallery where we have 40 students of Grade 11 stand ing from Tee Voc High School. These students are under the direction of Mr. John Dur ham and the school is located in the constituency of the Honou ra ble Minister of Natu ral Resources. On behalf of all the members. I welcome you here this afternoon. MR. SPEA KER: Or al Questions. The Honourab le Leader of the Oppo sition. HON . S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, before we embark upon Or al Questions, I wish to raise a matter, to be followed by a substantive motion, which relates. Sir, in a very profound way to the customs and to the traditions of this Ho use, to say nothing of the privileges of each member of this House and regrettably, Sir, to your office.

Sir, on Thursday last, during the debate, or the con tribution to the debate on the reply to the Speech from the Throne by my collea gue, the Member for Fort Ga rry, you had occasion to make a ruling with respect to an interjection that had been made by the Member for Brandon East. the Minister of Community Servi ces, and a subsequent interjection that was made at that time by the Minister of Natu ral Resources. All of this is in Han sard, Sir, and I do not attempt to burden the House, or you, Sir. with a long dissertation reading back from Han sard because it is clearly there for all to read and.

Sir, it is in Ha nsard at Page 13 4 as it appears on our desk today. I bring to your attention, Sir, that the Hansard repor ters in titling this matter referred to it as "Speaker's Ruli ng." and you at that point, Sir, proceeded to make a ruling with respect to interjections made by the Member for Bran don East, the Minister of Community Services and the Minister of Resources. Then you, Sir, 174 used the words, "I thank the Honourable Minister for his support regarding the point that the matter has been concluded.

I will ask the Member for Fort Ga rry to proceed with his remarks with no further reference to the matter which has been concluded." Then you called on the Honou rable Member for Fort Gar ry to proceed: he did that, Sir, and completed his speech just before the supper hour ajournment. Then, Sir, in the evening of Thursday, December 9th, we find from Hansard that you came back into the House, apologized - this is on Page 13 6 of Ha nsard - for being late, said that you were "preparing a proced ural statement having to do with the dispute in the House at 5:30 in the afternoon.

I will read it to the House when the Member for Fort Ga rry is present." You then proceeded to read, subsequently, in the evening, Sir, on Page 140 of Hansard, a short proced ural statement, as you styled it, to the Ho use. You went on to describe that, "just before the 5:30 p.m. dinner break, there was a dispute between members of the House. The Member for Fort Ga rry referred to the subject matter of a privilege motion dealt with on December 7," and so on, Sir.

At the end of your remarks, Sir, you then said, "The remarks of the Honou rable Member for Fort Gar ry, although in the full flight of his oratory and at the climax of his remarks were clearly out of order and the two Minis ters were correct in their objections to a matter already decided in the House. Therefore, the Honou rable Member for Fort Ga rry should reflect on his remarks and act accordingly to parliamentary prac tice by withdrawing them." Then the debate ensued, Sir, with respect to his purported ruling that you were giving.

The Honoura ble Member for Fort Ga rry was asked to withdraw remarks on a matter which he and this side of the House certainly felt had been concluded in the after noon by the ruling that you had made. During the course of that debate, before the honourable member was named on a motion moved by the Ho use Leader, supported by the majority of the Go vernment, Sir, I made this comment on Page 142: "I wonder if I might.

Sir, as one who came in after these proceedings started, you were on your feet, ask if I may, Sir, on whose initiation does this matter now arise again before the House, because if there was no communi cation while the House was sitting - and I can only suggest, Sir, that it would be highly improper for anyone to have had any communication with you over the dinner hour- that would be improper and you, Sir, would be the first to object to it. Then on whose initia tion, Sir, does the matter rise, because the matter was dealt with this afternoon?

The Minister of Na tural Resources raised the point of order which has been read back to us tonight. He was in the unusual posi tion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, you having made a ruling, that if he wished to oppose your ruling, he then had to challenge the Chair. He chose not to do that. So you, quite properly then, Sir, told the Member for Fort Ga rry to carry on, not to deal with the topic again, which he did n't, and the matter is finished. You, Sir, as the lawyers would say, are functus officio on that issue. It cannot be raised again, with the greatest of

13 December, 1982 respect, by anyone." There was other debate. Sir. and I'm not trying to indicate that because I do not read from the others who par ticipated in the debate that their contribution to the debate was not relevant or. indeed. some might even say persuasive. I'm merely trying to sketch the outline of the matters which form. regrettably, the necessity for the motion which I am about to put. Mr . Speaker, the Member for Fort Ga rry was expell ed, a proceeding that is not usual in this Ho use.

It is not one that should be followed with any regularity except on those occasions where it is absolutely necessary to deny the House the services of a member for some matter that is clearly an affront to parliamen tary privilege or to the customs and traditions of our parliamentary debate. Then, Sir, on the morning of Friday of last week at 10 o'clock, the morning immediately after the ejection of the Member for Fort Ga rry, on the Or ders of the Day as the first item I asked the following question - and this is on Page 149 of Han sard: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister.

Did the First Mini ster. Mr . Speaker, any member of his caucus or any third party. for or on behalf of the First Mini ster or members of the Go vernment. make any contact directly or indi rectly with Mr . Speaker on December 9th, relative to his rulings during the speech given by the Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry on the afternoon of December 9th?" The the First Mi nister responded, Mr. Speaker, "I called upon Mr .

Speaker personally at 5:35 p.m. yes terday, in order to advise the Speaker that I wa nted a copy of the transcript pertaining to the proceedings in the latter part of the afternoon and indi cated to the Speaker that I felt that some unparliamentary lan guage had been utilized, particularly in respect to some references by the Member for Fort Garry in relationship to myself, and that I expected, upon per usal of the transcript, to raise the matter of privilege at 8 o'clock." I made a further comment. Sir. The Attorney General then stood in his place and said, "Mr.

Speaker, first of all. further in response to the first question asked by the Leader of the Oppo sition, at approxi mately 7:50 p.m. yesterday evening I called at your office to pick up a copy of the transcript which had been requested by the First Mini ster and picked up that transcript. and shortly after left your office. That will complete the record on that as far as I am aware." There was other debate that took place, Sir, that I wil l not burden the Ho use with. at that time but it can all be seen on Pages 149 and 15 0 of Han sard of Friday last. Mr. Speaker.

I call to your attention particularly, Sir. the fact that on the evening of Thursday the 8th. I brought it to your attention as clearly as I could that if there had been any attempt to contact you by members of the front bench with respect to matters that had occurred in the afternoon in your discharge of your duties as the presiding officer Qf this House, that that of course, Sir, would be highly improper.

You sat in your place and there was no response made to that statement at that time Ind eed, as I recall. and I'm subject to correction on this. the First Minister was also in his place at that time and made no response to the improp riety of the front bench. partic- 175 ularly the First Minister, going to call upon a Speaker with respect to a matter of debate and then later on that Speaker coming into the Ho use in the evening and making a ruling, Sir, which altered the ruling that he had made in the afternoon.

All of these circumstances, Sir, are extremely pain ful - I want to underline - not only to members on this side of the Ho use but I'm sure to members on all sides of the House. Painful, Sir, to us because of the high role which you have to play in this House and the generally credita ble way in whic h you have attempted to carry on this onerous responsibility during the past year. I said in my remarks.

Sir. last Friday, based upon the qui ck reaction that I had to the words of the First Minister, that it would be our intention to consider this matter and to present a substantive motion referring the matter to Privileges and Elections Committee. Sir, it is not our intention to do that because upon reflection the evidence goes beyond that necessity. Upon reflection, Sir, it is regrettably the necessity of the Op position to move a resolution that relates directly to that conduct and to the only answer that we can see. unfortunately, to that conduct.

Sir, I know it is diffic ult for all members of the House to deal in matters of this sort because we do respect your office. we do respect the indivi dual who has held the office. but a parliament would be a lesser being if it did not. from time to time, take those actions, painful as they may be, which are guaranteed to ensure that the institution of parliament remain an inviolate insti tution: that the position of the chief presiding officer be one that is not capable of being tampered with by any majority, no matter how well-intentioned that majority may be.

There is, Sir, such a thing as the tyranny of a major ity and one of the roles as Bourinot, and as Ma y. and as other writers of Parli amentary Procedure underline time and time again , that the fundamental role of the Speaker is to ensure protection of the minority and at the same time to ensure that the wil l of the majority, that is to get on with their business and so on, is not totally and completely frustrated. You will find no argument from us. Sir. with respect to the long estab lished traditions of what your role is.

But rising through all of that background and tradi tion wit h respect to the impartiality of your role. Sir. is the fundamental understanding that you. like Cae sar's wife, must be beyond question with respect to your impartia lity. You cannot be seen in any way whatsoever to be catering to the majo rity in the House. or indeed, the minority in the House. but you have to remain the impartial arbiter of affairs in the House. When, Sir, we see regrettably, that a decision made in the afternoon of Thu rsday.

December 9th is then, for reasons we can only speculate upon. changed that evening, until we are told the next day that the First Mini ster and the Attorney-General called upon you with respect to matters raised in that debate then. regrettably. it leaves us no option but to move the motion that we do. I say, Sir, for the benefit of those who are not part of this Hous e and for those who perhaps do not under stand all of the nuances of par liamentary procedure and so on - and I made some reference to this the other day in my brief remarks when you were speak ing on Thursday evening - it is as if a referee of a

footba ll game near the end of the second quar ter had made a call on a par ticular play. Then he came back at the beginning of the third quarter and said, 'I want to change the call that I made in the second quar ter because I'v e come to a different opinion about that.' That, Sir, would be bad enough, but then when we find that the coach of the opposing team had been to see the referee during the break, that, Sir, is what puts this whole situation into the unfortunate situation that we found on Thursday and again on Friday.

Sir , it is, as I have said before, not a matter that any of us in this Ho use relish whatsoever, not one that we relish at all, but I have no alternative, Sir , but to place a motion before the House. with regret. The motion is as follows, moved by myself, seconded by the Ho nourable Member for Turtle Mountain: WHER EAS on the afternoon of December 9, 19 82, Mr. Speaker made a ruling with respect to remarks by the Ho nourable Member for Fort Ga rry; and WHER EAS following the dinner recess, Mr.

Speaker altered the aforesaid ruling in contravention of all precedents and practices of Ho use debate; and WHER EAS the First Min ister and the Ho use Leader both admitted to contacting Mr . Speaker during the said dinner recess, thereby compromising the impar tiality of Mr . Speaker: and WHER EAS such conduct constitutes a grave im propriety and is offensive to the basic conventions and traditions of a free parliament and to the impartial ity of the presiding officer of the Ho use; THERE FO RE BE IT RE SOL VED that this House no longer has any confidence in its presiding officer. MR.

SP EAK ER: The Ho nour able Me mber for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr . Speaker. I would like to sug gest to you that the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opp osition is not in order at this time. Whil e I understand - and the Ho use has had notice of his intent to move this motion - it is certainly properly worded in terms of text, because any reflecton on the Chair must be in the form of a Motion of No n confidence in yourself, Sir, and while I certainly do not concur in the intent of the motion, I do not intend to debate it because that would be inappropriate since I submit, it is out of order.

I draw your attention, Sir, to Citation 81, in the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne, which suggests that for ques tions of privi lege a member must give notice to the Speaker at least one hour prior to the opening of a sitting It is customary for questions of privilege aris ing during the Or al Qu estion period, and for those for which notice has been given. to be considered at the conclusion of the Or al Question period. Furthermore, Citation 82, "A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first poss ible opportunity.

Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House." I think it's clear, Mr . Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition claims precedence fort h is motion because we are in the Throne Speech Debate and the only way he could acq uire precedence for this motion would be to move it the way he has. To place it on the No tice Paper and go through the notice of motion proce dures that are normally attendant to the moving of substantive motions would mean that this motion would not come up until Wednesday at the earliest if it appeared on the Notice Paper today.

So he is very specifically claiming that this is a question of privilege which req uires and has attendant to it, some immediacy. So, first of all, the question of immediacy is raised under our Rules. The opportunity existed for the Leader of the Op position to raise the question last Thursday evening; the opportunity existed again on Friday when he suggested some possible reference to a committee of the matter which had been some mat ter of contention in the House on Thursday evening. Certainly the opportunity has been there.

The prece dence that he requires to set aside the discussion on the Throne Speech has not been established because of the delay - I certainly would have argued the prece dence was there even as late as Frida y morning - but that's no longer the case. There's been a full weekend intervening; there was ample opportunity on Friday and certainly the nub of the allegation that the Leader of the Opp osition makes, relative to the Speak er. relates to his obliga tion under our Rules for supplying transcripts to members. That has been an establi shed precedent in our Ho use for a long time.

So on that score, although I don't wish to discuss the details of the allegation , I don't think there's any question that the Leader of the Op position's proposed motion is out of order at this time. If he wishes to move that motion at the end of the Throne Speech, under proper provision, since he can no longer claim prece dence, he would have that right; and at that time I would enjoy debating the spurious allegations he's made this morning. So, Mr . Speaker, I submit the motion is out of order, and would ask you to consider ruling it out of order for those reasons. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Op position. 176 HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, one might, in an ordi nary debate, antici pate that a procedurial objection of the sort that is taken by the Member for Springfield would be raised.

I would suggest to you, Sir, with respect, that while it is extremely difficult for you, in the position which you find yourself now, to make a ruling upon this point: that the custom and tradition of power would suggest, Sir, without any written rule whatsoever, that an order or a motion affecting the position of the presiding officer of the House must take precedence in the debating order with respect to matters before the House: and if my honourable friends opposite wish to split hairs about rulings that may be found in Beauchesne. or in Bour inot, or in May, I have some quotat ions here to gi ve you, Sir, in that respect.

I can only suggest that they consider for once, Sir, in the course of this debate, consider the good of parliament. I would suggest that if they consider the good of parliament they will not be raising what might, by some, be regarded as frivolous complaints about procedure when a matter, Mr . Speaker, of this kind of fundamental importance is raised before the Ho use for its consideration. I can suggest to you, Sir. that with respect to prece-

dent and trad ition. Bouri not. Page 77 and in sections following Page 77. has references for your considera tion. I can suggest as well, Sir, that the 19 th Edition of May, on Page 225, et sequitur, I am advised has those references as well with respect to urgency of debate. and with respect to the precedence that should be accorded to any resolution touching upon the impar tiality of the presiding officer of the Ho use, as indeed regrettably this resolution does. So I merely say.

Sir, that in the interests of parlia ment that matters of this sort should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment, and that any considera tion of what is in the public interest and, therefore, in the best interests of parliament, would cause you, Sir. particularly, to want this matter to be discussed. You will recall, Sir. that I said in introducing the matter that it was introduced as a matter affecting the customs, the precedents and traditions of this House, which could be treated of course as a matter of privi lege affecting all members of the House.

I think on all accou nts it is clearly in order and that it would be egregiously harmfu I to parlia ment, to say nothing, Sir, of your position. if this resolution were not dealt with immediately MR. SPEA KER: To offer advice. the Honou rable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Well. on the same point of order, Mr . Speaker. the Leader of the Op position is not above. whenever the time arises to suit his conven ience. reminding us of the importance of the Ru les of the Ho use. It is to the Ru les of the Ho use and to the trad itions of the House that the point of order is addressed.

The Leader of the Op position rose in his place and offered us a citation. without giving us the substance of the citation. There was reference to a page in Beau chesne. and on that page I find nothing relevant to the point There is reference to something that you may find in Ma y. Well, the Leader of the Op position has Ma y in front of him, let him read the sections. It seems to me that he is being a little bit evasive by referring us to something to which he does not want to refer.

Let him refer to those passages so that we may judge whether or not they are relevant to the point of order. and I am only speaking now to the point of order. -(l nterjection) -W ell, I am understanding the motion very well. and I will if necessary speak to the motion and to the fact that it is lack ing in a factual foundation entirely, but that's another question.

To the point of order. there has been an objection raised to a well-docu mented point of order that in no way brings to this Hous e the material upon which it rests, other than an airy-fairy reference to pages in Beauchesne which appear to be irrelevant to the issue. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Turtle Mou ntain. MR. A. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker. speakin g to the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Spring field, he raised basically two issues. On e, that our Ru les and Procedu res show that notice should have been given an hour prior to the introduction of the 177 motion.

I can only point out to the Honourable Member for Springfield that earlier in the sitting this House and you, Sir, accepted for debate a point of privilege raised by the Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry without notice being given. as the Member for Springfield now alleges should be the case; that the practices of the House clearly show that it's not required. The Honourable Member for Springfield also says. and I agree with him, that a point of privilege should be raised at the earliest opportunity.

This, Sir, is the earli est opportunity ava ilable to the Opp osition since the record of Hansard containing the answer given by the First Min ister on Frida y morning. We are, therefore. fulfilling the necessity of raising it at the earlie st opportunity, because when we had an opportunity to see the answer given by the First Min ister on Friday morning where he said, "I called upon Mr .

Speaker personally at 5:35 p.m. yesterday, in order to advise the Speaker that I wanted a copy of the transcript pertaining to the proceedings in the latter part of the afternoon and indicated to the Speaker that I felt that some unparlia mentary language had been utilized. particularly in respect to some reference by the Member for Fort Ga rry in relationship to myself, and that I expected, upon perusal of the transcript, to raise a matter of privilege at 8 o'clock." On ce the transcript became ava ilable to us.

Sir, it became evident we had no choice but to raise this point of privilege. and this being the earliest opportunity MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr . Speaker.

I agree with the Leader of the Op position when he suggests that urgency and the protection of the parliamentary sys tem are what are at issue here. and certainly in accor dance with Citation 81. the Leader of the Op position did give notice at the beginning of question period, on Friday last. of his intention to introduce a motion respecting proceedings last Thursday evening. but he failed to introduce that motion. To the Member for Turtle Mountai n, I can only sug gest, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that the sentence to which I referred earlier in Beauchesne's Citation 81 in the Fifth Edition. reads as follows: "It is customary for questions of privilege arising during the Or al Qu es tion period, and those for which notice has been given. to be considered at the conclusion of the Or al Qu estion period." They don't mean the Or al Qu estion period on Monday next or a month later. they mean that day.

I was suggesting. not that the Leader of the Op posi tion was required to give notice, but that that was one of his options: that he had fai led to give formal notice. including the text of his motion: that he had failed when he raised the matter last Friday to then move his motion at the end of that Or al Qu estion period and he. therefore. has forfeited his question of urgency with regard to Thursday night.

If he wishes to raise the matter as a substantive motion through the proper procedures of our Ho use and parliaments everywhere. he now has another route with which he may proceed and that is formal notice of motion. which has a certain time period

attached to it under our Rules and will be taken into debate in the normal precedence which would be att ached to it. But to the claim for precedence over the Throne Speech Debate. and over the business of this Legislature and the people of this province. cannot be granted under these Ru les. Furthermore, both the cit ations to which the honourable member referred in Bou rinot and May are based upon the precondition of urgency and have always been.

Qu estions relating to confidence in the Speaker may be raised at any time. but to attach urgency to those requires the immediacy of the event. otherwise the motion must be considered in proper order and in the proper precedence attached to the House business. So, Mr . Speaker . I still submit, despite the very learned interventions of the members opposite, the motion is patently out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. RANSOM: Mr .

Speaker, further to the points made by the Honourable Member for Springfield, I can only point out to him that when the Leader of the Op position made reference on Frida y to the possibil ity of a motion to refer the question to a committee of the Legislature there was still some doubt in our minds as to the facts of the case. Upon perusal of the transcript it became evident that the First Min ister had given a full answer in which he stated he had, indeed, been to see Mr. Speaker and had raised the question concerning the use of unparliamentary language, the quotation which I read to you earlier.

Concerning the matter of urgency, Mr. Speaker , I simply point out that we dealt earlier this week with a matter which surely could not be considered as urgent as the one with which we are dealing now. It was dealt with prior to the question period at that time. The rights of members of the Leg islature, and espe cially the Members of the Opposition in a parliament, surely take precedence over other business, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government Ho use Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Just on the last point and on the same point of order. I think, Mr.

Speaker. it's important that we be clear on the basis that is offered for the motion. so that we can add ress the point of order. The basis that is offered for the motion has to do with the ruling whic h you made concern ing remarks made by the Member for Fort Ga rry concerning a matter which had been addr essed as a matter of privi lege two days earlier. That was the point on which you ruled .

You did not. in fact. rule at all, when you did rule, on the point which concerned the First Min ister, which was a reference to himself and, therefore, what he said on Friday morning added not a jot or tittle of new factual evidence to the point which is now being raised.

To say that they could not until they had perused Ha nsard to see what the Premier had to say, that they could not formulate their motion until then. is to fly in the face of the record because the First Min ister said very clearly and I will read it, it's one sentence. it couldn't have really confused them, 178 although sometimes one wonders: "I called upon Mr .

Speaker personally at 5:35 p.m., in order to advise the Speaker that I wanted a copy of the transcript pertain ing to the proceedings in the latter part of the after noon and indicated to the Speaker that I felt that some unparliamentary language had been utilized, particu la; iy in respect to some references by the Member for Fort Garr y in relationship to myself, and that I ex pected, upon perusal of the transcript, to raise a mat ter of privilege at 8 o'clock." It was clear when one then refers back to the Thurs day evening proceedings, that later on when you had disposed of the particular issue, the First Min ister rose to raise that point that concerned him, that he had been cal led a liar by the Member for Fort Ga rry - that was what concerned him and that was what he came to see you about - therefore to suggest, as has now been suggested, that they could not have moved their motion because they needed this record is, as I say, to fly in the face of the record and the point of order raised by the Mem ber for Springfield stands as a valid point of order.

MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition to the same point. HON. S. LYON: Yes, to the same point, Mr . Speaker. I think I had made the point a little bit earlier and I think it bears consideration agai nst the rather frivolous arguments we're hearing about procedure when, Sir, I know that this House would want to get on to discuss the motion of this fundamental importance. I gave the First Min ister, Mr. Speaker, with respect, opportunity on Thursday last to indicate whether or not he had been in contact with you.

With the greatest of respect, Sir, I gave you opportunity Thursday night last to make that same indication and there was no indication forthcoming. I then had to put the question on Friday morning, Mr . Speaker, in order to get to the truth and it was only on Friday morning that we heard the rather astounding admission from the First Min is ter that he had been to see you, Sir , and then later that the Attorney-G eneral had called at your office as well.

No w, Sir, for the Member for Springfield to stand up on some trumped- up procedural matter and to say to you, Sir, that it was not proper and prudent for the Op position to carefully weigh all of those words before any substantive motion to this House, suggest, Sir, a real want of understanding of parliament and of the individual responsibility of members of this Ho use before they make motions of the very serious nature of this motion.

So I suggest, Sir. that the Member for Springfield, the House Leader, are really arguing in circles, because if they were so wont to give information to the House why didn't they do it when they had the opportunity to volunteer it. Why did it have to be extracted from them? MR. SPEAKER: Does any other member wish to advise the Chair? The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr . Speaker, to clarify one procedural question relating to the Office of the Speaker with which the Leader of the Op position is

Monday, 13 December, 1982 having some difficu lty in understanding our parlia mentary procedures. The Leader of the Op position. Sir. suggests that on an unnumbered page in the rough transcript of Frida y night, that an opportunity existed. This seems to be the essence of the Op posi tion's last straw to claim precedence and procedural order for this motion: that the opportunity to gain the information was not there. The Leader of the Op posi tion. Sir, errs dramatically in his understanding of parliamentary procedure when he think s that he can ask a question of the Speaker and get an answer from the Speaker.

That's one of the most fundamental rules; the questions are not asked of the Speaker in this House. Similarly, the Leader of the Oppo sition errs funda mentally when he's speaking on a point of order in this Ho use on Thursday evening and suggests that the Premier. the First Min ister. should answer questions he asks during his point of order. A debate on a point of order last Thursday evening was not an opportunity for the Leader of the Op position to ask questions of the First Min ister. nor was it appropr iate for the First Min ister to answer them.

As we all recall, the First Min ister answered those questions at the earliest opportunity in question period Friday morning. So I submit. Mr. Speaker. the opportunity was not there to provide that information Thursday evening; it was provided Frida y morning and the Leader of the Op position had all the information he needed to move his motion last Friday. MR. SPEAK ER: Does anyone else wish to advise the Speaker?

Order please When a matter of privi lege is raised in the House there are two things that the Speaker has to judge by: one. is whether it is the earliest possible time for bringing that motion; and secondly. whether there appears to be a prima facie case as to the motion privilege. There would seem to be that case involved in this particular one. The dispute between members seems to do with whether there was sufficient notice given or sufficient opportunity to bring this matter up on Friday. Possibly there is a strict basis for the Honourable Member for Springfield's remarks. However.

I under stood the mover of this particu lar motion to indicate very clearly earlier. on I believe Friday, that such a motion was to be forthcoming. I would judge that to be sufficie nt notice and tha t the Ha nsard transcript of Frida y morning was not availa ble on Fr iday morning and not until later on that particular day when the Honour able Leader of the Op positio n's office requested it from my office. In conclusion.

I wou ld think that the subject matter of this particular motion is sufficient that the Ho use would want to deal with it at the first possible oppor tunity and it would not serve the purpose of this Ho use to have the particu lar motion hanging over the pro ceedings for the next little whi le. I will. th erefore. read the motion to the Ho use. MOTION presented MR. SPEAKER : The Honour able Go vern ment House Leader. 179 HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker. I' d like to raise one issue whic h I think is fundamental and goes to the very heart of the issue.

The premise upon which the motion is made is that - and it's contained in the second paragraph of the motion - Mr. Speaker altered the aforesaid ruling in contravention of all precedents. etc. I have before me the record and I will refer to the record in making the point which I wish to make. namely, that there is no substance whatsoever to the allegation that the Speaker altered the aforesaid rul ing. And if I am right in my argument that there is no factual basis for the contention, then the motion fal ls with the disappearance of the alleged factual basis.

Page 13 4 of Ha nsard. the Member for Fort Ga rry had been speakin g and raised a point relating to the Min ister for Community Services. The Min ister for Community Services got up to raise what he thought was a point of order. Speaker's Rul ing No. 1 - "Order please. order please. I thank the honourable members for their contributions. They will be aware. I'm sure. that a difference of opinion as to the facts between two members does not consititute a point or order.· · So up to that point, you had said that there was no point of order - up to that point.

Then you went on to say the matter. - and that the matter relating to the privilege of the member of the House as it affected the Member for Brandon East - you then went on to say that your ruling on the matter of privilege should have concluded the matter. should have concluded the matter. It was not a point of order because you said there was no point of order. You made an observation that your previous ruling on the motion of privilege raised by the Member for Fort Ga rry should have concluded the matter. At that point there was a point of order raised and this is the first point of order that was raised.

The Min ister of Na tural Resources rose in his place and you asked the Min ister of Na tural Resou rces. "Do you have a point of order?" The Honourable Min ister of Na tural Resources: "Yes I have. Mr .

Speaker." The reafter. the Min ister for Natural Resources was raising the first point of order in the sequence. went on to speak to that and add ressed the point of order: and in the short passage that appears on Page 13 4. raised what is a fundamental question. namely. that once the Speaker had raised a question of privilege and had decided on a question of privilege. it could not the reafter be referred to ag ain. What Mr.

Speaker said following the contribution of the Mi nister for Na tural Resou rces is qu ite clear: "I thank the Honourable Mini ster for his support regarding the point that the matter has been concluded." The matter which is concluded is the matter to which you referred earlier as having been concluded. namely, the question of privilege. It 's clear that you're using the identical lan guage for the identical point, namely. that the matter of privilege whic h had been raised on Tuesday had been concluded.

It was in light of that that you went on to say "I will ask the Member for Fort Ga rry to proceed with his remarks with no further reference to the matter which has been concluded." You did not rule on the point of order. whether it was a point of order. or rule on the point of order thereafter as you saw fit - and it was up to you - you came back to the Ho use and made for the

Monday, 13 December, 1982 first time. a ruling on the point of order and no amount of twisting of words or obfuscation can hide that fact. And when. in his opening remarks leading to the motion, the Leader of the Op position said that the matter had been concluded. the statement which you had made and those words clearly in context referred to one thing and one thing on ly, namely, that the matter of privilege had been concluded. There was no suggestion made by you, as I read the record, that the point of order had been dealt with.

Therefore, it was open for you to deal with the point of order as you saw fit, on reflection. Secondly Sir, in terms of the suggestion that has been made, which I think is contemptuous of you , inadvertently perhaps. but nevertheless in substance objectively and of the First Min ister that anyone had attempted to influence your decision.

Again, as I pointed out a bit earlier. but I insist it is necessary to repeat for the record. the First Mini ster when asked the question at the only appropria te time for the ask ing of that question - that is, the question period that followed the next day - said specifically that he had called upon you with respect to a remark which he heard having come into the House at 5:2 0, and what he heard was the Member for Fort Ga rry saying that the First Mini ster had told a lie.

He was rankled, as he was entitled to be at that statement, and cal led upon you, as he has said to the House and is a matter of record, to ask you to obtain a transcript and to advise you that he intended to raise that in the evening. Subseq uently, you came into the House and did not deal with that matter at all because it had not been raised and that was proper. You dealt with the one question only which had been raised by the Min ister of Natural Resources and had not been dealt with; you were not dealing with the con cluded matter.

Subse quently, the First Min ister - and this completes the record and indeed corroborates the point - rose to say that he had intended to raise as a matter of privilege the remark dealing with himself, but in li ght of the circumstances that had then developed, he saw fit not to raise it but wis hed to advis e the House that he and other members on this side of the House were becom ing concerned with these repeated breaches of deco rum. calling people liars, and that he was in effect serving notice that. should this pattern of behaviour continue which is bringing this House into disrepute, that we would raise it on each and every occasion until the question of decorum was settled in this House. so that people coming into the galler ies to see what is tak ing place could understand that this was, in fact, the ele cted representatives of the people and not some kind of third-rate zoo.

He raised those points and he raised them properly and to suggest. as this motion does. that there was in any way a grave impropriety, is clearly wrong on the record. Finally, Sir. I would like to make a point which I made in earlier discussion that in my view it can never be improper for someone to call upon the Speaker and to say to the Speaker there's a question which con cerns me. I would like the record. It 's the Speaker who orders the record; in these circumstances that was an appropria te thing to do.

If we ever reach that day where. as is suggested at least by implication, that the Speak er is closed off from contact by members of the House. then that will be a very sorry day indeed. 180 The effect of this motion. Sir, is to suggest. not a grave impropriety in my view; the effect of this motion is to suggest that the ordin ary busi ness of the House could not be transacted; that people could not speak to the Speaker on questions of the kind that the First Min ister did. There is clearly no grave impropriety that has been suggested; no grave impropriety that stands on the record.

This motion ought to be soundly and roundly and quickly defeated. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR . A. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, it is necessary that the sequence of events and ans wers given be clearly understood. The Honourable Government House Leader has attempted to paint a hue to the answers given by you, Sir, which is clearly not the intention of the answers when one follows the course of the debate.

The essence of his first point was that you had not made a ruling; that indeed in your answer on Page 13 4, where you said, "I thank the Honourable Min ister for his support regarding the point that the matter has been concluded." The Honourable Government House Leader is attempting to make that a reference to the point of privilege which had been raised one or two days prior to that: where clearly, Sir, the reference is to the issue that had been dealt with immediately prior to that, the point where the Min ister for Go vernment Services had risen to take exception to it.

I submit, Sir, the evidence for that is very clear in that. first of all, on Page 13 4 of Ha nsard, there is a subheading "Speak er's Rulin g" and I believe, Sir, that the transcripts are reviewed by you as Speaker before they are finally printed and that this heading, therefore, receives your app roval in being printed in Ha nsard and it is entitled "Speaker's Ruling." As further evidence of that, Sir, I refer the honoura ble members then to Page 140 of Han sard at the bot tom of the page. the right hand column. Mr .

Speaker said, "Although I ruled on the matter ." He then goes on at the very top of Page 141. in the left hand column, "I ruled,'' and then proceeded to read the ruling which you gave, Sir. That clearly is evidence in your mind and in my mind that the issue had been dealt with and was disposed of. For the benefit of the House, there was no indication that the question was taken under advisement. There was no thought in the mind of any member of this House that they expected you to come back , Si r, at 8 o'clock and make a ruling on this question.

I defy any member of this Ho use to say that there was an expectation that you were com ing back with a ruling on this issue at 8 o'clock that night. There was no such expectation. It had been dealt with. On the second point raised by the Honourable Go vernment House Leader, if it is his contention that the issue was indeed still open and that you had yet to make a ruling. Sir, then it is even worse that the First Min ister and the Government House Leader, the Attorney-Ge neral, should presume to go to your Chambers, Sir, and to speak to you about such an issue.

It is even worse that it should be considered and I respectfully suggest. Sir. that it is even worse then for you to have entertained them.

Monday, 13 December, 1982 The answer given by the First Mi nister on Friday morning, in that answer he does not attempt to say that he strictly dealt with the question of an allegation concerning himself. He only says "particu larly," which tells me, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure tells any other thoughtful person, that his conversation was not con fined to that issue alone. The fact that the qu estion is there, I'm afra id gives - and I regret - gives rise to the motion which we have put forward this morning.

It is not something that we relish by any means, far from it, having to bring forth such a motion as this; but the Speaker in any parliament must be seen, must be impartial and he must be seen to be impartial. It is fundamental to the protection of the rights of all members of the Legislature, and especially to the rights of the Op position, tha t this should be the case. Unfortunately. Sir, this sequence of events which has been outlined by my leader gives rise to this motion of non-confidence. It is a very regretful thing, Mr . Speaker, that it has come to this. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Min ister.

HON. H. PAWLEY: I would like to just make a few comments in connection with this matter. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, this is cer tainly not a matter that anyone in this Chamb er rel ishes and particular ly insofar as the motion itself is of such a nature as to express no longer a confidence in its presiding officer, because this is certainly not the views of members on this side of the Chamber. In the third paragraph of the motion, Mr . Speaker, it indicates, and

whereas the First Min ister and the House Leader both admitted to contacting Mr. Speaker during the dinner recess, thereby compromising the impartiality of the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is, that by contacting the Speaker during that supper hour, on the part of the Attorney-General and by myself, that there was a compromising of the impartial ity of the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that couldn't be further from the truth. Just prior to that, it's my understanding that efforts were made to obtain a transcript of the proceedings from the Clerk's office.

It 's my understanding that the transcript of proceedings must be obtained from the Speaker and indeed the Leader of the Op position - if I heard the Leader of the Op position correctly - indi cated that even he had obtained a transcript on Friday pertaining to the proceedi ngs of the Ho use; and that the obtaining of the transcript was, indeed, before you were called upon to make rulings pertain ing to this subject today, Mr. Speaker. -(Int erjection)- HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker , ju st on a point of order for the record. Let the record be clear. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Op po sition on a point of order. HO N. S, LYON: Yes. It was you. Sir, who made refer ence to the fact that my office obtai ned a copy of the transcript on Friday. My secretary. Sir, contacted your office for that purpose and it's qu ite within the powers of any member to do so in that way. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable First Minister 181 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I'm not arguing that there is something wrong with that having taken place but, Mr .

Speaker, the fact is that the secretary of the Leader of the Op position obtained a copy of transcript and that, I believe, not to have been in order, Mr. Speak er. I do not know and I would be interested in obtaining information as to what other means can be used to obtain a transcript pertaining to the proceed ings in the House, particula rly in relationship to the case which I was concerned about, Mr.

Speaker I rose immediately to my feet at 8 o'clock that evening prior to this matter having been dealt with. to raise a matter which I felt was one of privilege pertaining to remarks made by the Member for Fort Ga rry in relationship to myself, having to reserve further comments because at that particula r point the Member for Fort Garr y was not present and, in courtesy to the Member for Fort Ga rry, I refrai ned from further proceeding with my remarks on Page 13 4 later on that evening after the main body of the discussion pertaining to the Min ister of Community Affairs had been dealt with So, Mr.

Speaker, the suggestion that once someone contacts your office, either in person or through an intermediary or through a servant, that that imme diately compromises the impartial ity of the Speaker, Mr . Speaker, does not bear out by tradition, does not bear out by practice. If there is now a thought that. by •eq uesting such transcript of proceedings. it does impinge upon the impartial ity of the Speaker then we'd better that there is a capacity for obtaining trans cripts in the Clerk's Office or by some other means so that we can deal with matters rather than having to wait until Ha nsard is formally printed.

There are many occas ions where we cannot wait for one reason or another until Ha nsard is formally printed Now, the only course, as I understand, Mr . Speaker, not being one that claims to be an expert pertaining to the Rules and Proceedi ngs of this Chamb er, is to obtain that transcript from your office. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry. MR. L. SHER MAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker I believe the Honourable First Min ister, in attempting to make his point, has introduced some extraneous material into the argument at the centre of affair s this after noon and to the central point at issue.

The Honoura ble First Mi nister hC!S made reference to the fact that he rose immediately at 8:00 p.m. on the day in ques tion, Mr . Speaker, to raise a point of privilege relative to certain references that I had made about him. or in connection with a statement made by him during the afternoon sitting of the House. Mr . Speaker, I don't intend to deviate from the subject at hand by dwel ling on that point other than to say, Sir, that the Honou ra ble First Min ister did not come into the House at the time that I made that statement on Thursday after noon.

The Honourable First Min ister was in the Ho use and was sitting in his place and I directed the remark to him and my Leader even made an informal com ment as to whether the Honourable First Minister was concerned by it. and at that juncture the honourable gentleman did not rise in dispute. Mr. Speaker. the point at issue here is a technical point. If I was guilty of a breach of the privileges of this

Monday, 13 December, 1982 House. and I accept the fact that I was, Sir, because the House so decreed on the motion of the Honoura ble Go vernment House Leader and so voted, it was a technical breach of the privileges of the Ho use. in that I made reference to a subject that had already con cluded. in your words.

Sir. on a privilege vote earlier in the week I have difficulty following the arguments of the Hono urable Go vernment Ho use Leader when he makes the point. or attempts to establish the position that there were two points of order involved here, Sir , and that the Speaker's Ruling referred to on Page 13 4 of Han sard refers only to a situation raised by the Honourable Min ister of Community Services and not only to a subsequent situation raised a few seconds later by his colleague the Honourable Min ister of Na t ural Resour ces. Mr . Speaker.

I just want to suggest to the Hono ura ble Go vernment House Leader that it was one and the same issue, and that your remarks, Sir, support that contention and prove the fact that it was one and the same issue. You said, Sir. on Page 13 4 of Hansard in the right hand column and I quo te you, Sir, "I thank the Honourable Min ister," this was in reference to the interjection by the Honour able Min ister of Na tural Reso urces, "I thank the Honourable Min ister for his support regarding the point that the matter has been concluded." I don't know what could be more clear on a statement of that kind. Sir.

"I thank the Honou rable Min ister." the Min ister of Natu ral Resources, "for his support regarding the point that the matter has been concluded." In other words, you had decreed that the matter had been concluded; the Min ister of Na tural Resources had lodged an interjection before I con tinued with my remarks: you interpreted that as his support for your point that the matter had been con cluded and you so stated that, Sir.

You went on then to say: "I will ask the Member for Fort Ga rry to proceed with his remarks with no further reference to the matter which has been concl uded." And I did proceed accord ing to your admonition and instruction, Sir. So the technical point at issue here is the alteration of that ruling later in the day's proceed ings incorporated in your statement that evening to the House. Si r, and that statement commenced with the following words. Sir, I'm quoting you, Mr . Speaker: "Just before the 5:30 p.m. dinner break there was a dispute between members of the House.

The Memb er for Fort Ga rry referred to the subject matter of a privi lege motion dealt with on Decem ber 7th and the Mi n ister of Community Services and Corrections and of Natur al Re sources," and I repeat. Sir, "The Min ister of Community Services and Corrections and of Natu ral Resou rces rose on a point of order. Although I ruled on the matter without the benefit of perusal of Hans ard it is possible that my remarks were not sufficiently clear." etc .. etc.

You reinforced the point, Sir. that you had made a ruling that addressed the interjections of both the Honourable Min ister of Community Services and the Honourable Min ister of Na tural Resou rces, and I therefore suggest in all respect, Sir, that the argument advanced by the Honourable Government Ho use Leader is not logic al and do es not sta nd up under scrutiny 182 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Healt h. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker. it seems to me that there were two different issues here that hap pened on Thursday just before the dinner hour.

One was the question of the situation of the Mini ster of Community Services. the thing that had been dealt with, that was one thing: and then the First Min ister tak ing objection to being called a liar in the House by the same member, the Member for Fort Ga rry. Those were the two issues that - oh yes. now, there was -( In terjection)- now wait a minute, we've listened to you. Those were the two issues that we're look ing at today, I am not saying at 5:30.

All right, at 5:30 then, the two Min isters I think took objection to the Member for Fort Ga rry continuing the discussion on something that had been dealt with the day before. That was the main concern. The first ques tion is, did you make a ruling at the time? The Member for Fort Ga rry, the members on this side say that you did, and you yourself later on said that there might have been a misunderstanding, you wanted to make sure that was clear.

I am not going to debate who was right or who was wrong, that has been dealt with - and aga in we're bringing this thing up today - that was dealt with, there was a motion on that. Now I am sure, Sir, that this is not the main thing. The main concern that the Leader of the Opp osition had is when he stated that he was concerned that members from this side had approached you and influenced you in changing your decision and that is the reason why they're bringing this resolution today because they said, if you were influenced then. we're sorry, we do not have confidence in you any longer.

Those are the two different subjects. The point is that the Premier of the province stated that he was concerned because he had been cal led a liar, that he sent someone from the caucus to the Clerk to get the transcript. The Clerk said he could not give it to you: you have to get it from the Speaker. So then he went out and asked for it. and did say at the time that he was concerned, he wanted to see it. He was con cerned because of the unparliamentar y language and the name-calling that had happened Before, when it was ready the House Leader went and got it.

At no time, as far as the information that we were given, did anybody say that the Sp eaker was influenced on the other decision at all. So I think that the Speaker might have been wrong in the eyes of the members of the Opposition in waiting until 8 o'clock, which actually as far as the clock is concerned. it was a few minutes after because all this happened between 5:20 to 5:30 and this was at one minute after eight or immediately at 8 o'clock, but that part was dealt with rightly or wrongly - and I don't think we can impute any motive the Speaker said that he wanted to make that decision clear.

The Opposition said you had a chance, you missed it; they chal lenged the Speaker's ruling, there was a vote and the decision of the Chair was sustained. Now, the other point is. did we influence? That would be the reason why. That would make it a lot more serious and that would be the reason why you have this vote of non-confid ence today. You wouldn't have a vote of non-confi dence if there had been a mistake made because there has been mistakes made by the Speakers at other times and you had a chance,

13 December, 1982 you chal lenged the ruling at that time. But let the record show. Mr. Speaker, that at no time is there any information given. or any proof that there was influ ence brought upon you to change your ruling. It was completely different. If that's not the way to get the transcript, please tell us how we're supposed to do it, because the Clerk said you can only get it from the Speaker? You yourself said that you obtained the transcript on Friday. You yourself did the same thing. You got it from the Speaker. You got it from the secretary.

We were told we had to go to the Spe aker; this is what we'd done and the First Min ister said he wanted to see it. The reason why he wanted to see it was because there was some name-ca lling, he wanted to make sure. and at the first chance he wanted to protest that. That's exactly what has been done. So I would say, Mr. Speake r. the question that we're talking about now, your ruling, should not be debated, that's finished. It 's been the third time we've talked about that and the point is, were you influenced by the First Min ister or anybody on this side to change a decision? That is the point of contention.

MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Memb er for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Yes. Mr . Speaker, thank you. Mr . Speaker, as I said when I entered the debate and raised a point of order when the original motion was proposed, because of the tone and tenor in the debate in this House over the last two days on questions relating to this whole procedural argument. I would welcome an opportunity to reply to the spurious alle gations that are being made by the Leader of the Op position. Mr. Speaker.

I do welcome that re ply, despite the fact that unfortunately it takes precedence now over the urgent business before the House in discussing the Throne Speech of the Go vernment and the Gov ernment's plans for action in this troubled economic time. Mr . Speaker. I do share. however. the Leader of the Op position's stated concern for parlimentary demo cracy and the basic conventions and trad itions of a free parliament. Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to you that, if anything, my record on that is clear.

The record of the Leader of the Op position is somewhat doubtful, including his contributions last Thursday evening and last Friday. The matter at issue, Mr . Speaker, appears to be twofold. Does Mr. Speaker have the right under our Ru les to expand on a statement he makes to the Ho use? Let's not argue about whether or not what Mr . Speaker said last Thursday at 5:30 or 5:24. or whatever the time was. was actually a ruling. It may well have been a ruling, I will concede that point. It may have been. The fact that Ha nsard labels it as a ruling does not make it so.

The Member for Turtle Mo untain's suggestion that the Speaker reads every Ha nsard in draft and app roves the headings and checks the text for typos is an horrendous proposition. and the Op po sition House Leader certainly knows that's a ridicu lous sugge stion. So the sug gestion that Hans ard determ ines whether or not. by their subtit les. a ruling is a ruling or a di scussi on of a point of 183 order, is nonsense. But I will accept the point that it's possible some members opposite and some members on this side may have considered Mr.

Speaker's statement shortly before adj ournment on Thursday last as a ruling. Are we to deny the arbiter of discussion in this Chamber the right to expand? -(I nterjection)- Arbiter. sure, I' m easy. The Leader of the Opposition is concerned about denying an umpire as he suggests. or a referee in a sports game, the right to expand or change a decision. This isn't a game: this is very serious busi ness and I resent the implication by the Leader of the Op position that this is a sports arena. If that's what he thinks it is, he can go play somewhere else. Mr .

Speaker. the matters before this Chamb er are much more important than those which take place in a stadium or arena. If the Speaker felt that he wanted to expand on a ruling he had made, he certainly had every right. Mr . Speaker, I know you didn't change your ruling.

You had an opportunity to do research and check it out and you referred to citations, but you certain ly and clearly before 5:30 told the Member for Fort Ga rry that he wasn't to be engaged in that kind of debate. since the matter had been settled, and at 8 o'clock, or 840, when the Member for Fort Ga rry was in the Chamb er, said exact ly the same thing. that the member should not be engag ing in that activity. So whether you call one a ruling and the other a ruling. or one a statement and the other an expansion on that statement in the form of a ruling, is entirely irrelevant.

I would never deny the Speak er the right to expand for the benefit for all members. his

interpretation of our Ru les to make sure that everybody in this Ho use has an under standing of it. Now. Mr. Speaker. the second matter at issue is whether the First Min ister and the House Leader com pr omised the impartial ity of the Speaker. Mr. Speaker. I'm concerned about that because I'm nervous about going to visit you. I suggest, Mr . Speaker. the great knowledge tha t the Leader of the Op position some times purports to claim with regard to parliamentary practice in our Ru les, doesn't extend to Citation 119 in Beauchesne : 11 9(2) on Page 39 of Beauch esne's Fifth Edit ion suggests.

"The Speaker's rulings, whether given in public or in private, constitute precedence by which subsequent Speakers. members and officers are guided. Such precedents are collected," etc. Now, Mr . Speaker, how could you possibly give a ruling in private. whi ch is going to then become a collected precedent of our House if no one can talk to you. no one can go and visit the Speaker and discuss a procedural question? Now, I'm not even suggesting for a minute that the First Minister did that or the Attorney-General did. but the Leader of the Op posi tion is suggesting that they might have had that dis cussion.

That's been denied. clearly been denied last Frida y and again today. But I would suggest to you, Mr . Speaker, that your opportunity to discuss proced ural questions should not be in any way dimi nished by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition who suggests that it's somehow improper. That's an estab lished precedent in parliaments throughout the Com monwealth, that any member can consult with the Speaker about House business and House procedure at any time and I wouldn't want the ignorance of the

Monday, 13 December, 1982 Leader of the Op position on that question to prejudic e the rights of 55 other members. Now, Mr . Speaker. the other question that comes into this, is whether or not there's been a grave impropriety. a grave impropriety. The suggestion that somehow the Go vernment House Leader or the First Min ister of this province has in some way intimidated by a visit or threatened or bullied. Now we have prece dents on those kinds of activities too, and certainly threatening language has always been considered unparliamentary. When a member has intimidated - sorry, excuse me. Mr .

Speaker - when a member has intimated that he would move the adj ournment unless certain explanations were given. the Speaker has interposed and called him to order for using language threatening to the House, also language threatening to the Speaker or to any other member has been con sidered intimidation and threatening in the Chamber. So, Mr. Speaker. I've heard the remarks of the First Min ister and of the Attorney-Gener al. I understand that what they've stated in the Hous e is truthful and I accept that as fact, so I know what they said to you, Sir.

But I would like the House to reflect upon what the Leader of the Op position said to our Speaker in Ha ns ard last Thursday evening. "Mr . Speaker. with the greatest of respect, Sir, on the point of order, a foot ball referee can't go back; a hockey referee can't go back and you. Sir. can't go back." That's what he said. A paragraph later he said, "I have not reflected on your conduct yet. but if this procedure is carried through, your conduct will be reflected upon, I can assure you." Now. Mr .

Speaker. if threatening and intimidating language is the kind of thing whic h provides a chal lenge of this nature to the Chair . then it's this side that should have been moving the motion. The Leader of the Op position has threatened and intimidated - at least attempted to - our Speaker. but I have every confidence that those threats and attempts at intimi dation had no effect whatsoever. Similarly, I have every confidence that the Member for Virden, who underwent the same kind of threats two years ago this week. was not influenced or intimidated by that kind of language. Mr. Speaker.

I think they should be on the record too. so that we understand the kind of activ ity which the Leader of the Op position engages in and then expects us to allow him to question the integrity of our presiding officer. Tuesday. December 16 , 19 80. a point of order was raised. The Leader of the Op positio n. then as Premier in this Chamber. said to Mr . Speaker. "I ask, Sir. that you ask him to withdr aw from the House while this debate and while this vote is being taken." He was referring to a member who has presently withdrawn for a period of about seven years. Mr.

Speaker disagreed with the then Premier, sug gested that the member had the right to stay and speak, to which then the now Leader of the Op posi tion replied with some chagri n and for the memory of those here and in the galler ies. wavi ng his hand, his fist and his finger and yelling at the Speaker as fol lows, "Mr Speaker. on a point of order, I suggest to you with the greatest of respect, Sir. that Rule 13 to which you've alluded on previous occasions in this debate. with the greatest of respect, Sir," - re member this is with the finger slashing the air - "ha s no rela tionship to this question before us today at all, and I 184 would suggest.

Sir. that you inform yourself upon that rule before you make further reference to it." Now you had to be here to understand the amount of threat that was in his voice and his finger at the time. But. Mr .

Speaker, I do not perceive anyone on this side raising the language and the behaviour of the Leader of the Op position as compromising you. because I believe you are of full integrity and not in any position to be compromised by the Leader of the Oppos ition and certainly , Sir , I know you were not compromised by the First Min ister or the Attorney-General because I know what they told you; I know what they spoke to you about. They did not speak to you about your ruling; they asked you for a transcript. Mr .

Speaker, I submit therefore, that not only is there no substance to the motion as I've discussed each of the various clauses in it, but that if there is a question of confidence relating to the parliamentary traditions as they are respected in this House. the question of confidence should relate to someone who has great knowledge about these Ru les, but does not observe them. In fact, his knowledge is only in the breach and he uses and abuses them for his own political benefits even when he holds the office of the Premier. Mr.

Speaker, the crisis of confidence is not with you, but with the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Memb er for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Speaker. on a point of personal privilege, I just want to state that my record in this Chamber will speak for itself. Apparently the Member for Springfield is still establishing his. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Member for Brandon West. MR. H. CARR OLL: Mr . Speaker. I'd like to speak very very briefly. You, Mr . Speaker. have the right to be wrong. On Thursday. in my own opinion, you were very very possibly wrong, but I accept that.

I am not going to stand by and see an attack on the whole parlia mentary system set up because you may have been wrong in your decision. Our trad itions are that we accept your decisions and we don't go and try to fight you in some other way. I think this whole motion is an insult to you, Mr. Speaker. and I am most dis gusted to see it moved in this Hous e. MR. SPEA KER: The Honour able Memb er for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr . Speaker. I find it peculiar that at a time when the nation and the province are racked with unemployment and serious social problems that House time is spending time on a matter like this.

Mr Speaker, we are focusing our energies, because of the Conservative Opp osition, on a tempest in a teapot. Mr . Speaker. this whole procedure with the Conser vati ves' suppor t is bringing di scred it upon this Assembly and bringing discredit upon the parliamen tary process, bringing discredit upon people in public life. and they're not aware of this. but it's bringing discredit upon the Conservative Party of Man itoba as a whole.

Monday, 13 December, 1982 --- -- -�-- --- -� -·�- ---- Mr. Speaker, I have watched your rulings for the past year like everybody else. I have seen you try to operate under what can only be descri bed as new and difficult circumstances. The House for many years has had three parties in it; now it has only two parties and I think that you as Speaker have ruled fairly time and time and time again and given the Op position every opportunity to make their points, given them every benefit of the doubt. And on one occasion when they disagreed with what you have done, they demand your resignation.

I find that a very peculiar reaction indeed and the reason is that the Leader of the Op po sition has lost perspective, he's gone absolutely bananas on this particular issue. He thinks that this is the most important issue facing the people of Man it oba and their elected representatives in the month of December, 19 82. Mr. Speaker, all of us saw him lose perspective, as was just described. when he did not reflect upon the Rul ing of the Speaker which is out of order; he threa tened you as Speaker.

That is far worse than any verbal reflection. with finger-wa gging and red face and raised voice and eyes blazing, threatening the Speaker of this Assembly. Wel l, we all did see that once before: it wasn't the first time; we did see it with the member who preceded him. Mr . Speaker, the acrimony in this Ho use, I think. is the worst that I have seen since 19 66 - this is the worst, and it started from the very beginni ng because of the frustration of the members opposite with the last elec tion -(I nterjection)- that's right, the cause of it all. The fact of the matter is, Mr .

Speaker, that this party still believes that the Go vernment stole the election because they're not big enough to realize that they blew the election. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Op position talks about the tyranny of the majority. Well, we all know about that and we also know about something else called the tyranny of the minority and that's what we're getting right now. We're getting the business of the Ho use ground to a halt on a matter that is of little major importance and of no interest whatsoever to the public, to the man in the street. Mr. Speaker, can an ML A speak or talk to the Speaker ?

Can an MLA visit the Speaker? Can an ML A have any contact whatsoever with the Speaker of a Leg islative Assembly? Mr. Speaker. surely anyone in this Assembly can at any time, for social reasons or other. visit you in your office. It is not up to the Leader of the Opposition to quarantine the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Man itoba from December 19 82 on. Mr. Speaker. transcripts were obtained by the Pre mier of a debate that was of some importance in terms of problems associated with it and the Leader of the Op position obtained transcripts as wel l.

Well, I say that what is sauc e for the goose is sauce for the gander. Mr. Speaker, I think that we should dispose of this tempest in a teapot and get on with the business of the people of Man itoba. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? HON. S. LYON: Mr . Speaker, if no one else wishes to contribute to the debate. I would be happy to make 185 some concluding remarks with respect to this motion which is presently before the House.

I listened with amusement to the Member for Elmwood tal ki ng about how members should conduct themselves in the House, how unemployment is the main consideration and concern of the House and, Sir. when I spoke in the Throne Speech debate a week ago I believe I made that point However, I understand that when the Member for Elmwood came to make his contribution to the Throne Speech he dilated, for about 30 minutes or so, on giving the so-ca lled horse racing odds with respect to prospective Leaders of the Op position on this side of the House.

I really don't make it a habit of reading his speeches, but I'm told that that's what took place and I just wondered how that was meant to contribute to the crisis of unemployment that was facing Mani tobans and that is facing Man itobans because of the inaction of the Government to which he persists in clinging after he has been thwarted so often in his attempt to run back to the front bench.

So I think the Me mber for Elmwood is hardly in a position to talk about the qual ity of contributions to debate in this House or whether indeed, Sir. truth; the position and impartial ity of the Speaker is not a matter of high priority. We. Sir, must defer to other judg ments, to those of the parlia mentary writers and to others who tend to understand this institution somewhat more intimately than does the Member for Elmwood. He, Mr . Speaker, persists in taking this matter, which is an extremely serious matter, as a tempest in a teapot Well.

I pray for the institution of parliament that we don't have too many tempests in a teapot of this order. Before I leave the Member for Elmwood. may I make it clear for the record, lest anyone be under any mis apprehension because of the red herrings. the non sequiturs, all of the rather crude debating devices that are used by members such as he opposite to deflect attention, public attention, from the issues that are before the Ho use today, the very serious issues that are before the House today. Mr. Speaker. we're not unused or unaccustomed to that technique.

When you're guilty. you try to draw the attention of the lis tener to someone else. It is not anyone on this side of the House, Sir, in the course of a debate. who went to your office and sought an interview with you with respect to a matter that was under consideration. as they claim at the time - no one from this side of the Ho use - so let's get the facts straig ht The improprie ties alleged.

Sir. were improprieties on behalf of the First Min ister. the Attorney-Gener al. who at least admitted in the House that they had had that contact with you, Sir. and no one on that side of the House - and one wouldn't expect it from the Me mber from Elmwood - no one on that side of the Ho use has denied the fact. Sir. that you made a ruling in the afternoon. that you came into the House that evening and said you had made a ruling. then proceeded to change that ruling. whi ch is totally unprecedented.

If my honourable friend from Elmwood hasn't the wit to tie together the incidents which follow chrono logically with respect to that unfortunate second rul ing on your part. which resulted in the Member for Fort Ga rry being ejected from this House on a motion. Sir. pr oposed by the Ho use Leader. then if he hasn't the wit to see how these items all link together then I

Monday, 13 December, 1982 suggest. Sir, we should pay no further attention to the kind of mental meanderings that we've heard from that source during the course of this otherwise serious debate. Mr. Speaker, the Memb er for Springfield refers to the substance of the resolution as being a spurious allegation, yet I didn't hear him nor did I hear, more important ly, the First Min ister, nor did I hear the Leader of the House. the Attorney-Gener al, deny any of the allegations contained in that statement at all. None at all. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R.

PENNER: On a point of personal privilege. the record speaks for itself. On Page 149, I stated that I called upon you "to pick up a copy of the transcript which had been requested by the First Min ister and picked up that transcript, and shortly after left your office." The record is clear. HON. S. l YON: Mr . Speaker. the Member for Fort Rouge, the House Leader says that he called at your office picked up a transcript and shortly after left the office. Would he care to enlarge on that and tell us about the conversation?

Because what I'm saying to you, Sir, is that neither the House Leader nor the First Mini ster have said what the nature of the conversation they had with you was nor indeed do they have to because your action when you came back into the House. regrettably. Sir, spoke volumes about the kinds of interventions that were being made. Now, Sir. HON. R. PENNER: Well, Mr. Speaker. is that a ques tion to me? HON. S. l YON: No. HON. R. PENN ER: No. of cou rse not. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker. on a matter of privi lege.

I would simply refer you to my statements on Page 149 indicating qui te clearly what the nature of the visit was and what the request was. MR. SPEAKER : The Honour able Leader of the Op position. HON. S. l YON: Well. Mr. Speaker. after having dealt with these rather fractured matters of privilege, may I ask the First Mini ster then, when he was speaking why did he not venture some opinion as to why your Ruling had been changed that evening? Becaus e he had the full opportunity.

Sir, as I mentioned before. on the Thursday evening after you had come back and rev ersed yourself with respect to the matter of a ruling, I raised the point. I've read it into the record -(I nter jection)- he had the full opportunity. Mr . Speaker, to advise the Ho use at that time that he had been to your office and had had conversations with you respecting a point of order and the statements made by the Member tor Fort Ga rry that evening. He didn't do that 186 this afternoon at all; he had the full opportunity to do it but the record will show. Sir. that he didn't do it. Mr .

Speaker, before the trivial ity is lost upon all who are listening to this debate, may I say that there has never been at issue in this matter at all, the longstand ing right that has existed since 19 58, that I'm aware of. of any member to seek through the Speaker 's office. a copy of the transcript of Ha nsard.

Sir . you are not facing a motion today because the First Min ister. the Attorney-Gener al, or anyone else sought a copy of the transcript of Ha nsard and tor anyone on that side of the House to try to obscure or - to use the Attorney Ge neral's favorite word - to obfuscate and to try to cloud up the issue, the clear, pristine issue that is before us with that kind of procedural nonsense. let me say, that kind of te chnique may work tor my honourable friend, the Attorney-Gener al, when he's before a law class, it won't work in parliament and it doesn't work in the court of public opinion. Now, Mr .

Speaker, what I want to find out. Sir, is how long can this side of the House or indeed the people of Man itoba expect the kind of defense - if you may crown it with that word - that we have heard this afternoon to be sufficient? Of course. members of the House have access to the Speaker; no one has questi oned that at all. What members are questioning, Mr. Speaker, is the First Min ister of this Ho use going to the Cham bers of Mr . Speaker and following upon that visit, Mr. Speaker coming back into the Ho use and changing a ruling that he had made prior to the supper hour. That's what's in question. Mr.

Speaker. may I remind you, Sir, may I re mind some of my honourable friends opposite, of the fam ous Pipeline Debate? Ma y I say, Sir, with regret, that there are number of similarities between that debate and what is transpiring in this Ho use because, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friends opposite, like the Bou rbons, know nothing and forget nothing.

My honourable friends should listen; my honourable friends should read Han sard from the Ho use of Com mons for the debate that took place on the first day of June, 19 56. when the Speaker came into the House on a morning after having made a ruling on which debate was taking place and the next morning he said to the House, I've changed my mind and I am going to turn about the ruling I made last evening. Mr . Speaker, the Leader of the Op position at that time, the Honourable Geor ge Drew; the Leader of the CCF Party at that time, M.J.

Coldw ell, both said that is contrary to the practices and the precedents of this Ho use. You can't do that. In the course of that intervening debate, Mr. Speaker. references were made to whether or not the Speaker of the day. the Ho nourable Renee Beau doin had been contacted by members of the government front bench. When it came out, Mr . Speaker . that they had been contacted, indeed that the Leader of the House, the Honourable Walter Ha rris, had spoken to the Speaker after he had made that ruling and that the Min ister in that government. the Honourable J.W.

Pickersgill. had also cal led in to see the Speaker. and the Speaker had qu ite properly in that instance, as it is related in a number of books surrounding that instance, had said, no. I can't talk to you, but I have made up my mind as to what I am going to do. But there was interference at that time by members of the Treasury Bench.

Monday, 13 December, 1982 One would think, Mr . Speaker, for anyone who has any knowledge of our parliamentary system, or any sympathy or understanding or sensitivity to it, that that kind of warning which should be in the mind of all parliamentarians, particularly those who esteem to hold the office of First Min ister, that they would not put the presiding officer of a parliament in the position into which you have been put. Sir, as a re sult of that kind of visit.

That example alone should have been sufficient to indicate. to sound the warning bell that members of the front bench, at their own peril, tamper with the office of the Speaker in a way that we have seen regrettably in the last 72 to 96 hours. Mr. Speaker. I didn 't hear an argument coming from the Member for Springfield, that re ally deserves an intellectual response. What I heard, Mr. Speaker, was an attempt by the Member for Springfield to gloss over the facts. which are clear for anyone to see.

Backdoor references to debates that took place in this House a year or two years ago are interesting read ing but, Mr . Speaker. all I can say with respect to that, as any Speaker of this Legislatur e will know, if I have any thing to say to the Chair , Sir. I'll say it from my seat in the House and not scurry and scamper around thr ough the backdoor like the First Min ister does here. So, Mr.

Speaker, I have no apolog ies to make in that regard; but those who walk down the hall after hours, to try to imprint their will upon the chief presiding officer of this House, are the ones about whom the word "shame" should be used. My regret, Sir. is that you fall as the butt of their ill-considered actions. It is they, the First Min ister of this House, the House Leader of this House, who should be standing before the Bar of this House and receiving the proper con demnation from the Le gislature of this province for the kind of untoward interference which they have perpetrated.

The Member for Springfield tries to make a case, Mr . Speaker. that there is no finality to a ruling which is made by you. Mr . Speaker. what ki nd of a jurisdiction do they think we're operating in. if we're not operating in the common law parlia mentary system, which we have inherited and which we have built on and made into this exceptionally good Canadian system that we have? Go d knows it's not perfect. and there are always those on the outside. Mr . Speaker. who are trying to assault it; some from beyond our shores. some from within our very boundaries who try to assault this system. Mr .

Speaker, the system has long outlasted those who would try to rot it from within and I predict, Sir, that the system will continue to outlast that kind of sabotage from within. The fact that the Memb er for Fort Ga rry was removed from the ser vice of the Ho use that night seems to have been lost to the attention of the Member for Spring field. That. in his opinion, may not be a big matter. I suggest, Sir, that it is a big matter in the mind of the Member for Fort Ga rry. who is a distinguished member; not only of this House. but previously of the House of Commons of Canada.

That is a big matter that is worth the time of debate of this Ho use at any time. I want to assure the Memb er for Springfield. that rather than the narrow gauged view that he may have of what constitutes parliamentary privilege and pro cedure. that that kind of debate will be continued in this Ho use whether he understands it or likes it or 187 not, Mr . Speaker. So, my honourable friend for Springfield tries to say there is nothing wrong at all with consulting the Speaker on a matter that is presently before the House. What new rule is he laying down for the people who listen to him?

Is he saying that it's all right for a client to go unilaterally to a judge when his case is being decide d and talk to the judge? Is he saying that. Mr. Speaker? What difference is there, using the rather specious argument, Mr. Speaker, of the Ho use Leader that the debate was still on. in the matter of the ruling?

How then could the House Leader, how then could the First Min ister - even accepting that the spe cious argument was true- how could they presume to go to you, Sir. in the absence of the House Leader for this side of the House. to talk to you about a debate which they stand in the Ho use today and say had not been concluded and tha t the ruling had not been concluded? Mr .

Speaker, I know that members on the opposite side like to catcal l and yell when they find the truth too overwhelming, I know that; and I know from whence that desire springs, because really, Sir, the blood flow of democracy is not too great in the veins of some of the honourable members opposite. Mr .

Speaker. if my honourable friend is suggesting that you can go and consult a judge any time, why is it that every politician in every parliamentary system on the face of the earth would never try to do, with respect to a judicial officer, what the First Min ister and what the Attorney-General - of all people - did, with respect to you. Sir, in connection with a matter which they say was still open? That's even worse. That's even worse. Sir. It says something. Mr.

Speaker. about the qual ity, the understanding and the integrity of parliament. when people such as those two members feel that they are free, Sir. in the exercise of their rights as freeborn socialists. to go and pamper with the pre siding officer of this House. Mr . Speaker. I come back to the Member for St. Bon iface. I come to the Memb er for St. Bon iface for the contribution that he made in an attempt.

Sir, to say that there was no proof in support of this resolution because let me make it clear What we're debat ing today here, Sir, and my honourable friends can use their majority in any way that they see fit but the truth will come out, what we are deba ting here today, Sir , is whether or not that resolution is true. If my honoura ble friends want to use their majority to vote against a resolution that. with regret, we've had to bring to this House, let them do it; but 'et them pay the price and be prepared to pay the price of public opinion. Sir. for inflicting their version of truth upon this Legislatur e.

It won't wash. It won't happen. I ask them if they want to do some weekend reading, as I did; go back and read the Pipeline Debate. Go back and see how that fractured parliament for weeks and weeks of time. after the Speaker took a position that was seen to be one that was in favour of the government. and, Sir. I know I need not instruct you with respect to the unfortunate ending of that inci dent. The Speaker. the Honourable Mr . Rene Beau doin. even though a similar resolution to this was put before the House. and even though the government majority defeated that resolution: Mr.

Beaudoin resigned as Speaker of the House of Commons within

Monday, 13 December, 1982 a matter of weeks after that unfortunate matter was brought before the House. Mr. Speaker, the Me mber for St. Bonif ace says no information was given, or proof, that influence was brought to bear upon you. Mr . Speaker. All I say in response to that is this: why did you come back into the Ho use in the evening and change your ruling and say that you were changing your ruling after calls had been made upon you? Why, Sir? That is what we can't understand. With regret, we can't understand that. That. Sir. is what brings this unfortunate resolution before the House. Mr.

Speaker. the points of argument have been clearly made by my colleagues. the Member for Turtle Mou ntain and the Member for Fort Ga rry with respect to what the record discloses. My honourable friends can obfuscate all they wish. The record discloses. regrettably. that you made a ruling in the afternoon: you then came back into the House in the evening and said, I made a ruling this afternoon but I'm going to change it. Sir. with the greatest of respect. that can't be done Mr. Speaker. when that kind of action.

Sir, is com pounded by the admission of the First Min ister and the Attorney-General. that they both came to call upon you with respect to this matter. then I suggest. Sir. that your position - as I said on Friday - is untenable. Mr . Speaker, the First Min ister - and I repeat this point - who had an opportunity on Thursday evening; who had another opportunity again on Frida y morn ing; and who had a further opportunity, again, here in this debate on Monday afternoon, which he fought to prevent from taking place. that the First Min ister, Mr .

Speaker. has not at any time made any denial what soever of the topic of the conversation about which he met with you: none whatsoever. Mr . Speaker, no one. as the First Min ister said. relishes this kind of a debate: no one at all. Mr . Speaker. the views of the Government have been expressed and I regret, Sir, that the views of the Go vernment do not in any substantial way deflect. regrettably, Sir, from the substance of the motion. There is not one jot or tittle of evidence that they've brought forward that detracts in any way, Mr .

Speaker, from the unfortunate allegations that have to be made on that resolution. Mr . Speaker. the case that we have made, with respect to this issue in the

preamble and in the opera tive

section of the resolution, has not been rebutted. In deed, there's been an attempt on the other side to try to colour the picture: to try to say it didn't happen. People who go around shooting themselves in the foot are now trying to blame somebody else for aiming the gun. They can't do that, Mr. Speaker. Our parlia mentary system doesn't work that way at all. They may, as I've said before, Mr . Speak er, use the tyranny of their majority to defeat this resolution. They cannot use the tyranny of their majority to defeat parliament. QUESTION put; MOTION carried. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. RANSOM: Yeas and Na ys, Mr . Speaker. 188 MR. SPEA KER: Call in the members. Order please. The motion before the House is moved by the Honourable Leader of the Op position. seconded by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. Do you wish the resolution read again? A STAN DING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Banman, Blake, Brown, Downey, Dried ger, Enns, Filmon, Gou rlay, Graham. Mrs. Hammond. Messrs. Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats. Lyon, Manness. McKenzie. Mercier, No rdman, Mrs. Ol eson, Messrs. Or chard, Ra nsom, Sherman, Steen.

NAYS Messrs. Adam . Anstett, Ashton, Buck laschuk, Carroll, Corrin, Cowan, Desjard ins, Mrs. Dodick. Mr . Doern. Ms. Dolin, Messrs. Evans, Eyler, Fox, Harap iak, Harper, Mrs. Hemphill. Messrs. Kostyra. Lecuyer. Ma ckling. Mali nowski, Pawley, Penner, Ms. Phill ips. Messrs. Plohman, Sa ntos, Schr oeder, Scott. Mr s. Smith, Messrs. Storie, Uskiw. MR. CL ERK: Yeas, 23: Nays, 31 . MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accord ingly lost. INTR ODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Que stion Period, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the loges on my left where there is a Mrs.

June West bury, a former MLA of this Assembly, former Member for Fort Rouge. On behalf of the members. I welcome you here this afternoon. Oral Qu estions ORDERS OF THE DAY THRO NE SPEECH DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ri el, proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Op position. The Honourable Member for lnkster has 21 minutes remaining. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The other day, on Friday when I got up.

I referred to a number of topics, including decorum of the Ho use: how we were keeping this House, in what light in the public : our practices in the Ho use and I think for us as the Member for Elmwood pointed out, to have wasted so far this afternoon in excess of two hours and 15 minutes on a facetious motion such as that has done nothing to enhance this Ho use in the eyes of the public. I want to move into an area that is of direct concern to many Man itobans. MR. SPE AKER: Does the Me mber for Virden have a point of order?

Monday, 13 December, 1982 MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Speaker. on a point of order. I believe the honourable member is referring and cast ing reflections on a decision that has already been made by this Chamb er. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker. I wish to now turn my speech towards matters that do affect Manit obans; that affect all Canadians, and it's kind of breaking a new bit of ground. I suppose. and giving some food for thought both to my Government. of which I'm a part, and to the Government of Canada and other provinces.

The situation that I'd like to discuss is that of taxa tion and distribution of the burden of taxat ion on Can ad ians. We have seen. since 19 72, some erosion of the share of taxat ion on behalf of corporations and tha t switched much more to the individual. This is not something that's unique to Canada, it's not unique at all in the world in general, in that right across the world this same phenomenon has been tak ing place.

A good amount of the reason for it is because of the tax structures, the complication of the tax system and the increased number of exemptions of write-offs, and one thing and another, agains t income and direct credits making parts of incomes that people earn non taxable. be they individuals or corpora tions. It has turned very much so. a disproportionate amount of the taxes that are collected in this country on the backs of the wage earner - he who cannot hide his income; he who cannot write off income; he who can not write off expenditures agai nst his income.

In '71. in the Man itoba case. we collected in the vicin ity of 1 O percent of our taxes came from corpora tion income tax; 32 percent came from personal income tax; sales taxes yielded about 18 percent of our total taxation revenues. In 19 82, the corporat ion income tax had just decreased a bit. but personal income taxes had risen some 6 percent, as far as a total amount of taxes that are collected in Ma ntoba. The amounts of personal income taxes have increased from $1 16 million in 19 71 to $514 million in 19 82.

The percentage increase and the responsibili ty upon individual incomes has raised approx imately 6 percent. Corporations have. by last year $1 14 million was raised. just slightly over three times as much as was in 19 71 In 19 83. the latest projections. we're expecting the revenues to be down to in the range of 4 percent of our total tax revenues from corporations. From individu als. they will rise a further percent to almost 40 per cent, 39.4 percent. approx imately. These are just on estimates is the best that we got at this point in time.

Sales taxes have remained relatively consistent over this time period and the level of income raised from other forms of taxes as fees and other taxes across the board have remained relatively consistent as we ll. The only one that has generally increased is the personal income tax and on the personal income tax itself. with the exemptions that have been built in. the exemptions have built in disproportionately at the upper ends of the income scales. I have some data that was brought forward under an analysis of tax expenditu res done by the Federal Go vernment just a year or two ago.

It shows the impact on what we thought was a progressive tax 189 system or many people still tend to think of a progres sive tax system and the progressivity of the tax system is almost disappeared. Mr. Speaker The tax expenditures have risen dramatically in the past decade and the tax expenditures are basically one's abil ity to receive those tax expenditures is upon their capacity to be able to deduct particular items from their income; to be able to reduce their taxable income by going after incomes that are not taxed at the full rate.

The number of people with investment incomes that are therefore taxed at a lower rate. impacts a lot of people as well at the upper income brackets but now down below. With the income exc lu sions and deductions, they create far more tax savings for the upper income gr oups than they do for the lower income groups. I would like to table for the information of the House, I've only got three copies of this. Mr . Speaker. but I'd like to table this. if there are any pages around.

On the Federal Inc ome Tax expenditures. as a benefit of percentage of income. it sho ws. as you can see from this, that for the income on tax expenditure benefits as a percentage of income. for the very bot tom income categories. 0 to $2500. they receive slightly over 30 percent of their income tax expendi tures as it should be.

That is the people that the tax credits help the most. and it is because of the tax credits largely - the refundable chi Id tax credits under the Federal In come Tax Act. and also our own per sonal income tax credits and property tax credits - that is why you have such a high level at the lowest income groupings. As you go across the board the tax expenditures from income of $5.000 up to $20.000 does not change. It stays at about 4-1 > percent. After that it starts to increase.

After $20.0 00 it starts going up by a couple of percent a category until you get up to the $50 - $75,000 and it's taken a substantial jump. now it's up to about 8 percent: $75.0 00 to $1 00.000 incomes is up to about 1 O; $1 00.000 to $200,000 incomes is up to about 14; and then over $200.000 incomes. they are up almost up to the level of the under $2500 income people to ap prox imately 26 percent to 27 percent of the total income. That. I think. Mr . Speaker. is a real aberration on our tax system.

It 's one of the reasons that we have such a disproportionate amount of taxes falling upon the people who can least afford them and tha t is the wage-earner. Income exclusions are basically items which gi ve preferential treatment to capital gains.

In come deduc tions. be they charitable deductions or $1 .000 deduc tion for investment income on pension incomes for the taxpayers over reported in incomes of over $50,000. 87 percent of the total deductions for income averag ing annuity contracts were clai med by people with incomes over $50.000.00 RR SP's are another major factor and the more money you have the more money one is free to put in up to the maximum amount and at the upper income levels most people are able to take the full maximum amount al lowed to put into RR SP's.

The exemptions most benefit - this is straight exemptions for spouses. for childr en and other dependants and for the dis ab led - mostly impact the people they should be impacting and that is the middle-income earner and

Monday, 13 December, 1982 the lower-inc ome earners. The tax credits are about the only tool that we have to try and build some pro gressivity into the tax system at the provincial level. Unf ortunately, when the previous government was in office. they attempted to do away, or at least lessen the impact of the tax credit system on the lower income people. but they did absolutely nothing to try and counteract the high tax breaks given to the upper income categories. As a matter of fact, the one thing they did do. is they reduced the income surtax on the highest income brackets.

At the same time they were doing that they turned around and they tried to reduce, and effectively did reduce. the number of tax credits going to the lowest income earners. That, Mr.

Speaker, is a very vivid description, I think, of the differences between a New Democratic Party Government and a Conservative Government, because when we look for the tax system, we look for some equity in a tax system. we look across the share of who is contributing to the tax system, who is contributing to the welfare of the province, who is contributing to the cost in society and anyone who doesn't think that the society with a high qual ity of life doesn't cost money to maintain, is living in Disneyland.

With tax expenditures and effective taxation rates - I have another table I'd like to table for the information of the House - and it shows the difference with tax expenditures and without tax expenditures of what the effect of tax rates would be. We have, as should be, a negative balance for the lowest income groups and after that. a slight increase right up to about the $1 00.000 to $200 .000 range - very slight. mind you. very very slig ht, nothing reflected - it gets up lo barely 20 percent after tax expenditures.

People with an income range between $100,000 and $200.000 pay a mere 20 percent of the average tax rates. So when people talk about incremental tax rates and what their actual tax rates are, I would say that the tax credits at least destroy any amount of progressivity that is in a tax rate. At the top end. those with incomes of over $200,000. it's unique to see. or not unique - it's very sad to see - a substantial reduction in the amount of taxes paid, back to the level of someone making $20,000 to $25.000, back to about a 12 or 14 percent effective tax rate This kind of situation. Mr.

Speaker, I think has to be addressed. It cannot be addressed simply by the province. which is Man itoba, it must be addressed by the whole country. The Federal Government started to add ress it in 19 79 with. I think, what can be most descri bed as a relatively feeble attempt. There was a tremendous backlash to them monkeying with the taxat ion sys tem. which effectively reduced the amount of benefit that individuals in a higher income bracket would receive from tax expenditures and they backed away from those. They backed away from the ones that affected the corporations as well.

What they in effect did with those actions. Mr . Speaker, is they turned around and they just wrote back into The Tax Act a bunch of loopholes that had been initially attempted to be changed in the fall of 19 80s Budget. It showed 50 percent of those in the top income categories benefiting from the tax reductions for capi tal gains and 55 percent from the tax credit for divi dend incomes. The figures for under the $50.000 category, which is a pretty high category, were not anywhere near the 50 and the 55 percent for the cate gory over the $50,000, they were 5 and 6 respectively. 5 and 6.

Mayb e the Federal Government twisted that around and brought in the 6 and 5 program from it. I'm not really qui te sure. -(I nterjection)- Yes. they're very very recognizable. lucky numbers. Yes. lucky numbers for everyone except for the wage earner. Now, Mr . Speaker, when one sees the gross inequi ties in a taxat ion system that we have inherited, one must call, and it's only responsible that we do call, for a Canadian-wide investigation , if you wish. an inter parlia mentary review of the Canadian tax system.

I have some information here from other countries as well, and the situations are somewhat similar in that most of them have had fairly significant increases in the individual income tax responsibil ity for paying for the cost of society;

whereas the corporate taxes have dr opped. In Ca nada-wide, since 19 55, the individuals' income taxes. as a percentage of total tax receipts by the Go vernment of Canada, were approxi mately 20 percent. By 19 80 they had increased from 14 percent to 34.2 percent - a 13 . 7 percent increase. Corporation income taxes on the other hand, between '55 and '80 decreased almost 7 percent and I would suggest that the '83s and '82, when '82 is done, that 10 percent figure - in 19 55 it was 17 .6. in 19 80 it's down to 10 percent, I'll bet it's probably not much more than 5 to 6 percent.

That much, so there we are. back to 6 and 5 percent. So you will ha ve approximately a 12 percent reduction in the burden of corporations to paying for the costs of society, which they benefit from. In dividua ls. on the other hand. turned around and had to pay the additional amount of taxat ion. Almost all the other types of taxat ion are relatively level, except with big inequities coming in the corporation and the individual income taxes. One substantial alteration from that is the types of deductions that we have introduced with the levy for post-secondary education and health.

In other coun tries they are starting to move into that and have been over a number of years. 190 I' ll take one exa mple here - it would be in Japan - in 19 55 approx imately 6.5 percent of their income came from social security contribution receipts, as a per centage of total tax receipts in that country - 6.5 per cent. By 19 75 they were up, Mr. Speaker. to about 15 .5 percent - a 9 percent increase. Nor way went from 19 55 some 4.5 percent of the total income comes from this source to 15 .2 percent. In Sweden there was a much more dramatic rise, from 2 percent to 27 percent.

But in Sweden as well, I believe there was a substantial decrease in the income tax; wher eas we had an individual income tax that went from 20 to 34 percent of total tax receipts. In Sweden individual income taxes reduced from 53 per cent of the total government take down to 41 percent. a substantial reduction. If we were to switch to that form of taxat ion, Mr .

Deputy Speaker, I would suggest there are far fewer loopholes or there are next to no loopholes that cor porations can hire expensive tax accountants and tax lawyers for, to get around the income tax system and pass the burden of the cost to society on to the indi vidual. By doing this and bringing in these forms of taxa tion, as our Min ister of Finance brought in last

Monday, 13 December, 1982 -------- -- -- -- -- -�-�-·- ---- --- --� ---- year, it eliminates the loopholes, it tries to bring back into balance and there are corporation capital taxes and our levy for post-secondary education still does not bring us anywhere near the level of corporate contributions towards the provincial coffers, as we had back in the early '70s and in the '50s and '60s. Mr. Speaker, in the couple of minutes that I have left, I would like to, I believe - what have I got two or three minutes - two minutes left? Thank you. I would like just to touch upon one point briefly in closing.

That is the need for our society and need for our Go vernments, both federal, provincial and munic ipal. and the need of the individuals within society to be looking far more not at our pasts, which seems to be a preoccupation of many people on the Conserva tive side of this Ho use and in the U.S , I might add, as well. in trying to bring back the glorious '50s. but we have to look towards a future with a very changed prospective. I think that we should be looking and trying to become much more of a convivial and non exploitive society. a conservative society, Mr .

Speaker, where the needs and va lues of environmental assess ment and impact statements are given their just place in society; where they are valued the same as a cross benefit study is valued. No longer, no lon ger. Mr. Speaker, is our environment free. The environment and the degradat ion of our envir onment is exceptionally costly. It is not the corpora tions who pollute the environment or the individuals who pol lute the environment who pay - it is society as a whole that pays.

We must be look ing and searching for a higher qual ity of life, and a higher quality of life does not mean more quantity, which we have emphas ized so much in the past years. Let's put up our cost of living or put up - well. that's what happens when you start looking at quant ities instead of qual ity You start pushing up your cost-of- living; you start reducing the actual benefits that individuals receive out of their government as a whole.

We need to concentrate on the goals of a conserva tive society, the goals of a non-explo ited society. the goals of a society which gives human beings their just deserves, which gives human beings the real purpose of government to serve them. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEA KER: Or der please, the honciura ble member has expende d his time. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J. JOHNS TON: Thank you, Mr . Speaker.

I cer tainly hoped that the Speaker has the opportunity to peruse Ha nsard and I would like to say that I sincerely am glad to see that he overcame his health problems that he had last year, that he is operating well and his health will continue to stay exceptionally well in the future. I congratulate him for having this office that he has and. as we know. has a very tough time with, and I would certainly hope that situations that arose today will not have to arise again. I congratulate you. Mr. Dep uty Speaker. for being elevated into that position.

I would only hope that in your comments in the House in the future that you would remember that you are the Dep uty Speaker when making comments about people in this House. To the Mover and Seconder. I thought the Mover did 191 an excellent job. must say though that I've never been a person that was known not to be direct. I can't say that I agree with the words of the honourable member, but her presentation was done well, well researched, and certainly she has her constituency at heart when she is making those remarks.

To the Seconder, I would only say that he still doesn't seem to catch the atmosphere of this House. On e of his remarks was "Couldn't we all get together and make this province work well." Well, I happen to know, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion was made to the Government that the Opposition should attend the Summons Conference. I'm rather disappointed that we weren't invited and disappointed about the fact that the Member for Thompson could make those statements when we never had the chance to work with them on that particular conference.

I'd like to compliment the Member for Rupertsland. as everybody else has done. Hi s presentation and his speech in this House was. I believe, exceptional. Mr . Speaker. the Min ister of Fina nce stood up in his place at the beginning of his speech this year. and before he got more than three or four parag raphs into the speech, he said, "Man itobans are coming back. We have an increase of 10 .000 in one year. They're coming bac k, Mr . Speaker; we have an increase of 10 ,000 Man itobans and they couldn't do it in four years in office." Mr .

Speaker. these are the type of statements that are given to the Ho use and obviously are accepted by honourable members when they receive them and, you know, it disappoi nts me as members that they don't choose to examine where the numbers come from Mr . Speaker. we had a minus from October 1 st to September 30th in interprovincial migration of 729. We had 3.466 new immigrants who came to us interna tionally, and when you subtract that. you have an increase of incoming people of 202.737. but we had a minus in interprovincial migration. Mr.

Speaker. the reason why it's 202. 737 immigrants, people who joi ned us from other countries - but the reason for the 10 ,000 figure, Mr. Speaker. is that we had 874 deaths and we had 16 .930 births. So that. Mr . Speaker, is the reason why we get to the 10 .000 increase in the Pro vince of Man itoba. but as I said, the Min ister of Finance obviously didn't take the opportunity - it's right here. It says, Man itoba's demographic statistics qu arterly are presented by Statistics Canada. and it's very ava ilable. Mr .

Speaker, if the Min ister doesn't realize this. he jus t has to pick up his phone. call Statistics Man itoba and I v1ould be willing to bet that a Min ister calling for the statistics would have them in his hands within an hour. Mr . Speaker. the Min ister also says retail sales are up Wel l, the investigations of the figures that I have is that they're not up quite as much as inflation is within the province: and those are the two items tha t he immediately starts out with. So what do we see? We see statements being made in the House that haven't been checked, which are misleading. misleading.

As the motion of my leader says, mislead ing the people of Man itoba in credibil ity How can we in this province. in this House. personally accept the credi bility when we continue to have misleading state ments presented to us? When the previous member that just spoke to us

Monday, 13 December, 1982 Mr . Speaker. he started out last Friday and he said to us - he gave us a lecture really on the decorum and the Legislature of Manit oba and what he felt it was coming to. Well, Mr . Speaker. I will give some reasons why it has come to this if he thinks so and I'll tell him when it started. But, Mr. Speaker. I will say to the honourable member. I'm elected by the people of Sturgeon Creek and at no time will he tell me what to do when I'm not in this House - that decision is yours - or when I'm out of this Ho use especially, he will not tell me what to do. So, Mr .

Speaker, let's take it to where it all started. It all started the night the Premier was elected as the Leader of the NDP Party in Man itoba. Mr. Speaker, all of the members are following the same exa mple. It comes from the top. so we can't really put all the blame onto the members on the other side for making mis leading statements when that is the way they are le d.

On the second page of the Premier's acceptance speech as Leader of the NDP Party, he said thi s: "Onl y this morning a gentleman approached me at the rear of this convention, who arrived here from Tokyo yesterday. and advised me that four companies that had been located in Man itoba during the period of the Democr atic Party had withdrawn from Man itoba." Mr. Speaker. I have attached to that statement the letters from the four companies who said they are there when he said they had gone. On the second page of his acceptance speech. Mr . Speaker. begins the misleading statements. Then, Mr .

Speaker, this was brought up in the House when we were the Op po sition. this Man itoba economy slumps, where we proved that at least four of the companies named here as businesses closed were still in operation. That, Mr. Speaker. is the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-8a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 8a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	18dd663dbab50971c74d7ae09bd00afe5265dbf4

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).