Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On a matter of House business, Madam Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Thursday, April 24, at ten o'clock in the forenoon to consider the Annual Reports and Five Year Plans of the Workers Compensation Board.

I would also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on Thursday, April 17, at ten o'clock in the forenoon.

Madam Speaker: For the information of the House, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet at 10 a.m., on Thursday, April 24, to consider Workers Compensation; the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on Thursday, April 17, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I am privileged to move the following resolution,

"WHEREAS it is generally agreed that the Speakership is the most important safeguard to the effective functioning of the Parliamentary system; and

"WHEREAS there is an implicit contract between members and the Speaker based on a clear understanding that the considerable powers a House gives to a Speaker will not be abused and that no favouritism to one side or the other will be shown; and

"WHEREAS one authority on the British Speakership has written, 'it is inconceivable today that any Speaker would be consciously partisan,'; and

"WHEREAS the essential argument for non-partisanship is that the Speaker must not only be impartial but must also be perceived to be impartial, or as stated by Erskine May, 'Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that his (sic) impartiality is generally recognized.'; and

"WHEREAS the main test of the Speaker's impartiality, according to the literature on speakership, is the choice of who speaks in debate; and

"WHEREAS according to John Fraser, the election of the Speaker by secret ballot is a strong tool for ensuring the Speaker's independence.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to support legislation to elect the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba by secret ballot to ensure the Speaker's independence."

Madam Speaker: With regret, I must advise the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) that his resolution is out of order for two reasons.

First, contrary to our Rule 31 and Beauchesne's Citation 558, it revives a debate already concluded in this session. An amendment with the same objective was defeated on March 4.

Secondly, the resolution anticipates Bill 200 which would provide for the secret ballot election of a Speaker. Beauchesne's Citation 513(2) states that in such cases priority is given to the more effective proceeding, which in this case would be Bill 200.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for some clarification on your ruling.

The motion that the member has brought forward deals specifically with a statement of this Legislature and urges the government to support legislation. It makes no reference to the private members' bill, and, Madam Speaker, the difficulty we have is under our rules. We have no way of ensuring that a vote is held on that bill. The only effective way for this type of legislation to be dealt with is basically if the government does support it.

So I am just wondering on what basis you feel that this is inconsistent with both debating this motion, which is a separate matter, and Bill 200. I am wondering if you could clarify. Also, the debate that was concluded--you made reference, Madam Speaker, to that point on March 4. That did not deal with anything that urged the provincial government to support legislation to elect a Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I am wondering if you could clarify in what way the debate on March 4 would in any way, shape or form contradict this.

The debate at that time was over our nonconfidence in the current occupant of the Speaker's Chair. It was not to deal with what is a very clear statement made by the member, something, I think, that deserves to be debated in this House, and that is the need for not just the opposition but members on the government side to recognize the need for an elected Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Can I deal with the point of order or point of clarification? I am not sure which the honourable member for Thompson wishes it to be referred to as. Were you up on a point of clarification or a point of order?

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am hoping you could clarify--I rose on a point of order on your ruling for clarification.

Madam Speaker: Okay. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, for clarification purposes the amendment--to clarify the record, the amendment that I referred to in the ruling was the amendment moved by the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) which dealt exclusively with all members agreeing to the election of a Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, on a point of order.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. You cited Rule 31 of the rules of the Manitoba Legislature, and I am wondering if you have taken into mind that rules evolve and change over time. I was just recently reading an article in The Globe and Mail about rulings by, I believe it is, Speaker Stockwell in the Ontario Legislature and also federal Speakers, which suggests that the tradition and rules in the past about not having a debate about something that is already a bill on the Order Paper is being relaxed and that Speakers are not enforcing this rule to the same extent that they have in the past. I am wondering if you have considered that, or would consider this in your current ruling on whether or not this resolution is in order or not.

* (1710)

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On the point raised by the honourable member for Burrows, I cannot help but comment that it can easily be argued that our procedures are based on rules and orders and the writings of Arthur Beauchesne and the rules and customs and usages of Legislatures around the world. This is a first when the Toronto Globe and Mail now becomes one of the authorities under which we operate in this particular Chamber. So I would ask, with respect to you, Madam Speaker and the honourable member for Burrows, that perhaps this latest point of order is quite out of order.

Madam Speaker: The point of order raised by the honourable member for Burrows is indeed out of order. We have a process and a procedure for changing our rules through the rules House committee, and our Rule 31 is very explicit. At this point, I have made a ruling. I will not entertain any--I have been advised I should not even be entertaining any debate on points of orders on the ruling. The members know the rules that, if indeed they disagree with the ruling, they have the right to challenge the ruling that has been brought forward.

Mr. Ashton: We do know the rules, and we believe your interpretation of the rules is incorrect. The rules are in place, Rule 31. This matter was placed on the Order Paper by the member prior to this session, was part of the draw, should not in any way be prevented from being discussed by any interpretation of 31. Therefore, given once again the fact that we disagree fundamentally with your interpretation of the rules in this House, in this case what we believe is the abandonment of the rules in this House, we challenge your ruling, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay

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

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

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

Order, please. The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please rise.

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

Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Lamoureux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

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

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 16.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). If I would have voted, I would have voted not to sustain the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has accordingly been sustained.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, shall we call it six o'clock?

Some Honourable Members: No.

"WHEREAS a review of teacher collective bargaining and compensation has been requested and recommended by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees in formal resolutions from their annual general meetings and as recommended in the Report of the Legislative Review Commission; and

"WHEREAS the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee Report recommended that the issues related to teacher compensation be further examined; and

"WHEREAS the provincial government agreed that due to the complexities of the issues there would be further examination and review.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that members of the Legislative Assembly support the provincial government as part of its overall commitment to making meaningful improvements to protect the future of education and Manitoba's students through the appointment of Mr. John Scurfield, QC, to review the structure of teacher compensation to assess whether it is appropriate and fair."

Motion presented.

Madam Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).