* (1700)

Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' business.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to introduce this bill today although I must indicate if members opposite wish to put it to a vote on an expedited basis, I would certainly accommodate that as well because I do not think we need to have much more debate on this particular concept. I say that because to be quite frank I do not believe it is anymore a question of if we are going to have an elected Speaker in this House. It is simply a question of when. The real question involves when the government, and particularly the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who I think is the one remaining stumbling blocks to having this bill passed, and the remaining question is when the Premier will recognize, when we talk about an elected Speaker, is one of the most significant components of parliamentary reform that we have seen in our national House of Commons, in a majority of Canadian provinces, the British House of Commons. It is a wave, that is sweeping across parliaments and Legislatures throughout this county. The question is when the Premier of this province will bring us into the 1990s and recognize that it is absolutely right and fair to have an elected Speaker.

I want to go back to the roots of why we feel this is important, and this, by the way, is not the first we have introduced this particular bill. I want to stress that because even though what happened in this Legislature the last part of the session last year, the unprecedented circumstances in which we saw fundamental rules of this Legislature, the entire parliamentary process broke, in fact, a minimum of 18 breaches in that period of time. I want to say what I find absolutely incredible is that we moved this two years ago. I believe, Madam Speaker, I am absolutely fundamentally confident that if we had had this type of legislation in place in the last session, we would never have seen the circumstances that arose.

I want to stress, Madam Speaker, some of the historic background of this, because I think people have to reflect on why we are no longer in a balance situation when it comes to the appointment of the presiding officer of this Chamber, and why we need this bill so desperately. There was a time in this House when Speakers were appointed, yes, by the government but through consultation with members of the opposition. I want to say that it was not particularly this government that broke that precedent. There were disputes in the 1980s over the appointment of Speakers, but there was a balance that existed prior to that.

I thought it was unfortunate in the 1980s when that occurred and it left the particular Speaker at the time, who I thought did a very credible job in the situation of entering without the support of members--and this time the Conservative party in opposition. They did not even extend the courtesy we extended. When we were not consulted about the appointment of the current Speaker in 1995, but when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) extended the courtesy on behalf of our caucus to support that nomination and to give the incumbent Speaker a chance, the opportunity. So there is a history and I believe that balance that was lost in the 1980s was fundamentally broken in the 1990s, and particularly 1996, in the last session. What was the response of the Premier. Well, when he was asked about whether there would be an elected Speaker recently, what was his public comment? He said, "Well, we might get around to it. We might do it after the next election." But, you know, the opposition has to understand that it does not appoint Speakers. Only the government appoints Speakers in this province. Well, that may be technically true, but is the misstatement of what was the common practice in this house before. That is the background.

The balance has been lost and if there can be any doubt, Madam Speaker, I think you have to reflect on some of the other balance that has been lost in this House.

There was a time, and I recall a circumstance--the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) will recall this as well a few years ago--when a previous Speaker had one of his rulings not sustained by the government. I believe the member for Lakeside was not in his chair at that particular point in time. He was in the Chamber, but he was conveniently not in his chair and sent a message to that Speaker. You know, I remember at that time there was speculation as to whether the Speaker would resign because of lack of support from the House. Very interesting, because I think that would have been going far too far. I do not think not surviving a vote of sustaining the Chair, to my mind, requires a Speaker to resign.

I remember the time when it would have been unheard of for a Speaker to continue in the Chair without the full support of all opposition parties--unheard of. I think that is something that has been fundamentally lost, because we have now even seen a situation where the incumbent Speaker of this House has been subjected to more motions of censure than any Speaker in Manitoba history. I think that is absolutely regrettable.

I think we have to face some of the background or face the circumstances we saw last year. We can continue in this House as we did on Thursday and Friday debating repeatedly issues related to the question of whether the Speaker is unbiased and the Speaker is competent in terms of rulings. Those are obviously two important facets of any Speaker. We found ourselves on Thursday dealing with another matter of privilege; in fact, on Friday, another point of order, another vote. We are still going to be waiting for the matter of privilege to come back.

But, you know, there is a better way. There is a way out of this mess. I want to stress to members opposite that this is indeed a mess. I do not think it benefits anyone in this House when there is not full confidence of all members of the Legislature in the presiding officer. I want to go one step further, because it is not just us that it is talking about.

I do not know if members opposite are aware of this, but I had more comments in November, December--I still get comments to this day--about the functioning of this Legislature than I have had probably combined the previous 15 years I have been able to serve in this House. I have had people at grocery stores ask me, what about what the Speaker did, what about what happened? I get letters, and people talk about it. It is amazing. It has become something that the public is aware of.

I say to members opposite that what happened the last session became a symbol of their arrogance and their lack of respect for democracy for many Manitobans. If they do not realize that, I would suggest they go and they talk to anyone including many of the Conservatives that approached us. I have been approached by Conservatives expressing their understanding of why we were frustrated and expressing their support for an elected Speaker.

So what has happened is there is not only a lack of confidence in this House in the lack of unbiased rulings in this House and approach in this House, it is something that is shared by the public. [interjection] Well, if the members opposite doubt that, they doubt how important Manitobans see the survival in a very real base of democracy in this House, I have got a suggestion. Ask 100 Manitobans how many of them think it makes more sense to have an elected Speaker than to have one appointed by one person, the Premier, of this province. Ask them if they think it is fair.

* (1710)

Madam Speaker, they do not think it is fair. You take any organization where you have a Chair in place, the vast majority of organizations, they elect the Chair. I do not know of very many organizations where one person can unilaterally appoint the Chair. I want to state that that is really significant, because in this case, we are dealing with the Speaker who has essentially the judicial role in terms of enforcing not only our rules but the laws of parliament. We have to recognize that the Speaker is probably one of the most important positions in this province. The Speaker has the role of being the representative of this Chamber to the general public.

Madam Speaker, there is a way out of the situation we are in. It is simply to recognize that what is happening in other provinces can happen here. Yesterday the Alberta Legislature sat for the first time since the election. What was the first thing they did? They elected a Speaker. It is interesting because my understanding is that the Speaker that was elected was not exactly on the best of terms with the Premier, I believe had been dismissed from the cabinet. It is rather interesting because, you know, that made no difference in the selection process. In that province, in Alberta, it did not make any difference whether the Speaker was supported by the Premier. It made a difference whether the Speaker had the confidence of the House. Incidentally, if one looks at the party breakdown, that also included a significant number of government members. I put it to members opposite, what do they have to lose by moving to an elected Speaker like they have in Alberta?

By the way, they have in Saskatchewan. The Speaker in Saskatchewan has gone to communities throughout Saskatchewan and has gone to school groups and community groups and explained the role of the Legislature, an elected Speaker. Ontario has an elected Speaker as well. The House of Commons. I mean, I can identify province after province after province that has an elected Speaker. By the way, I point to Ontario because it is very interesting, they have an elected Speaker. They are just dealing with a situation, probably akin to what we went through with MTS last session, 12,000 amendments. What is interesting, one of them actually passed. You did not see any effort on the part of the Chair there to say, well, the government will not like this. You did not see the Chair in that province unilaterally deciding to ram through the 12,000 amendments. I believe that is because when you have an elected Speaker, you have a Speaker that is fundamentally committed to serving all members of the Legislature.

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, there are two roads ahead on this particular matter. One is that we can continue to argue over matters of order and privilege related to the role of the Speaker. The other, though, is quite simple. I understand, particularly when it comes to this Premier whose arrogance recently has probably reached a new height--I thought it had gotten to the ultimate level last session, but this is someone who is starting to think that Conservatives in this province have some divine right to govern. He said the other day, you remember that, about, oh, he thinks they are going to be in government a long time. The opposition is going to be--

An Honourable Member: That is what Brian Mulroney used to say.

Mr. Ashton: Well, Brian Mulroney used to say it. By the way, Brian Mulroney had the biggest margin in Canadian history, but that is okay. I mean, any government that starts talking like that--I mentioned this on Friday about what Sterling Lyon used to say--he used to talk about all of us in this House, especially who were on the government side, being temporary, temporary government. That is fine. But that is the road that we have ahead. We can keep the current situation. On a daily basis it is going to remind people of the arrogance of this Premier, because I believe fundamentally, Madam Speaker, the reason we do not have a resolution on this matter is one person, one person with a rather big title and rather small mentality, because I have heard his comments, and he seems to want to--he is on a personal vendetta against members of the opposition.

I know he was hurt on what happened in the last session of the Legislature with MTS because he knows that he was wrong. He was not supported by the people of Manitoba, but just to make the point with us, oh, no; yes, we may get around to having an elected Speaker sometime, but he wants to punish members of the opposition first by preventing this matter from being dealt with. What a narrow-minded agenda.

You know, I look at a premier who has been in office for more than nine years, and I say where is the statesperson? Where is the person that is supposed to represent the best interests of all Manitobans? Is there not a time just once when the Premier can get out of the political--well, I was going to use the term "gutter,"--but, well maybe I will use the term. I do not believe it is unparliamentary. But instead of thinking about a narrow-minded agenda which is simply concerned with frustrating members of the opposition, why does the Premier not recognize that even he can understand that it is time? We are going to have an elected Speaker in this province. Instead of waiting until after the election, why not start now so we get the benefits in this Manitoba Legislature beginning on this session, beginning today, because we can start the passage of this bill now? That is the one route.

The other route is--and I want to say this to the Tories who keep talking about getting into another century. I always find that funny because when I think of Tories and getting into other centuries, it is usually the 19th Century and not the 21st Century. You know, our selection of Speakers in this province is a 19th Century anachronism. The way of the 20th Century and the 21st Century is to reform our democratic processes to increase democracy. The way to do that in this particular case is to elect our Speaker.

I say to members opposite, you can go the one route of a narrow-minded approach, you can go the route of trying to punish the opposition, but I say to you, you only punish yourself. Because so long as you allow bills such as Bill 200 to remain on the Order Paper, so long as you do not support it, so long as you do not bring in an elected Speaker, what you really do is demonstrate on a daily basis that the reason we are in this situation is because this is an increasingly arrogant and out-of-touch government that has absolutely no concept of democracy.

I say, you have two choices. One is, obviously, I believe, the most politically damaging course for you, but you know quite frankly, I think it is in the best interest of all Manitobans, and particularly those of us who are in this Legislature want to see this function be a forum for democracy, not a part-time but a full-time democracy. The only way to assure that, Madam Speaker, is to assure that this bill is passed and we have an elected Speaker in this House.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I would like to join, as a seconder of this bill, in supporting Bill 200. Yesterday, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, Alberta had, as its first act of business, the election of a Speaker that was conducted--

An Honourable Member: A Kowalski.

Mr. Doer: A Conservative Kowalski--conducted by all members of the Alberta Legislature by secret ballot. The Premier's choice, King Ralph, was not elected the Speaker of the Legislature. After three ballots, and a secret ballot, Ken Kowalski was the successful candidate, and he has now the credibility to be the presiding officer on behalf of the members of the Alberta Legislature because he has been selected by a secret ballot vote, by a vote of his peers, all elected members of the Legislature.

Now, Madam Speaker, the results are not released. The only thing that is released is when somebody is last one on the ballot. Of course, this is very consistent with the bill that we have presented to this Legislature, because there is and there are other examples to move into the 21st Century of having an elected Speaker. This bill was proposed by the New Democratic caucus two years ago. It was not proposed as a result of decisions we did not agree with with the Speaker although, with the mounting evidence of decisions that have taken place in this Legislature, we think it is not only the sensible thing to do but the honourable thing to do and proceed to an elected Speaker forthwith by the passage of this bill.

* (1720)

We are the only province in western Canada that does not elect a Speaker. We are the last holdout of a patronage appointment made by the Premier of this province. The Speaker is shaking her head, curious, but B.C., Saskatchewan, Alberta elect the Speaker. The House of Commons elects the Speaker. The U.K. elects the Speaker. The mother, as they say, of all Parliaments elects the Speaker by all members of the U.K. Apparently in the last election in the United Kingdom, John Major's choice was not selected as the Speaker. Betty Boothroyd, a Labour party representative, was; Betty Boothroyd, person that some of us have met in the past, was elected by her peers in the House of Commons in Parliament in England. So this bill makes a lot of sense.

Why is the provincial government, the Tory government saying no to this bill? Why are we living in the past? Why are we living with an antidemocratic system of selecting a Speaker on the basis of the say-so of one individual, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province?

Now the Premier is now saying that we are going to go to an elected Speaker after the next provincial election campaign. Well, that is the first thing that he has got right in this Legislature in the last while, because we will bring in an elected Speaker position in legislation after the last election campaign and we will be proud to do so.

We will go across all 57 constituencies, pointing out our positive alternative to have an elected Speaker and the arrogance of members opposite who practised a system of closure through the Speaker in the last session of the Legislature, that according to all independent people, all independent people commenting on what happened in the Legislature, the Tories threw out the Rules book and the Speaker threw out the Rules book in this Legislature and denied the precedence of a hundred years of parliamentary procedure and democracy in this Legislature.

Perhaps the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) will be called to order by a presiding officer. Perhaps it would be in order for the Minister of Education to stop being rude in this Chamber. Perhaps the Minister of Education can be called to order by a Speaker and stop being rude while somebody is trying to speak on a matter of--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. McIntosh: I was answering a question called over to me from the opposition benches. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could ask his members to stop asking me questions while he is speaking.

Mr. Doer: On the same point of order, yes, Madam Speaker, I was speaking for a couple of minutes and the Minister of Education was in a tirade. She has just admitted that she spoke out of order, and I would ask you to call her to order so that I could proceed with the discussion of this bill. I would ask you to call all members of this House to order, especially the government members, who continue to harangue in this House and not allow us to debate the merits of this bill.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), the honourable member does not have a point of order.

Mr. Doer: Thank you very much. Every independent person, every independent analyst last year said that this Speaker, this presiding officer, this government caucus, this Executive Council group of people threw out a hundred years of history, and they think it is funny today to deny the democratic rights of all members of this Legislature on an equal basis.

Over a hundred years of history were thrown out by members opposite. Now, you would think a Speaker, a presiding officer that had a number of independent experts comment, person after person after person, that the Speaker herself had thrown out the Rules book and had denied the democratic rights of all members of the Legislature, would have resigned on an issue of honour. It is the only honourable thing to do. But honour does not play any part of this Legislature anymore. You would think a person who is the presiding officer, that no longer has the credibility of two other parties in the Legislature, that does not have the credibility of any other member on the opposition side would do the honourable thing and resign so that we can move forward into the 21st Century.

But instead we see a Premier hanging onto the past and a Speaker hanging onto the position, and honour and democracy play no part of this Legislature, and I say it is a shameful, shameful set of events that we have before us in this Chamber. The opposition should not have to move motions or censure. The opposition should not have to move motions of nonconfidence. The opposition should not have to resort to those kinds of democratic methods, but we should have honour restored to this Legislature.

The only way we believe that honour can be restored to this Legislature is to have us turn the page and pass Bill 200. If it is a good idea after the election campaign, why is it not a good idea after this Legislature has suffered the most criticism that it has ever endured for decisions that have been made by the presiding officer and the Speaker in this Chamber?

Madam Speaker, we believe that some members of this Chamber, no matter what their political party, have the temperament, the intellect, the experience, the ability, the personality to be in the Chair. Not every one of us, by the way, has those skills and characteristics necessary, and we believe the best people to decide that are our peers through an elected secret ballot. I have been informed that in the House of Commons, again in the last election for the Speaker, the Prime Minister's choice was again not chosen by the members of Parliament, and after five or six ballots the people themselves, the members themselves, chose somebody that has the intellect, the personality, the knowledge, the temperament that is necessary to be the presiding officer.

I suggest that probably the same process took place in Alberta yesterday, and that is the great advantage of this legislation to go to an elected Speaker, because it is not merely a position that is doled out by the Premier of the day, doled out in the way that other perks and prerequisites are doled out by a government of the day. It is a position that has the credibility of all members through that election to that office.

So, Madam Speaker, we are urging all members of this Legislature to move into the 21st Century, to put patronage appointments to the past and put democratically elected positions into the future. We can pass this law. We can pass this law today, and we can get on with electing a Speaker tomorrow. What a wonderful way to talk and act like we are moving into the 21st Century. I think Manitoba has led the nation in democracy through their parliamentary institutions, and, just as we have led the nation in the past, we have to catch up to the nation today on the issue of the presiding officer.

We strongly recommend that all members opposite vote with their conscience, vote with their intellect, vote with their true sense of principle. Do not be told by the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) how to vote on this motion. Do not be told by the party Whips and the party bosses across the way to vote against this. Vote for the future. Vote for an elected Speaker. Vote for restoring integrity and honour to the Chair. Let us vote with Bill 200. Thank you very much.

* (1730)

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Any occupant of the Speaker's Chair whose appointment has been obtained by the selection of the head of the ruling government will find it difficult to serve the ruling government or to serve all the members of the Legislature. No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one or love the other or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.

The proposition I would like to establish, Madam Speaker, is that any occupant of the office who obtained the office by nonpartisan process of election will be expected to be more impartial, more independent and more protective of all the rights of all the members. The present practice traditionally established is political and partisan. The first task of any premier or any leader of any political party who has been elected as the majority party is the selection of who shall be in cabinet, the cabinet formation. Inevitably there will be some aspirants who will be frustrated because they were not selected, and as a consolation prize the leader of the ruling government will usually make the offer of the Speakership to the disappointed aspirant for a cabinet post.

This has happened already, provincially and federally. When Mackenzie King was Prime Minister, in the first cabinet that he formed there was a person named Rudolphe Lemieux who was disappointed about not being placed in cabinet, and the Prime Minister offered the position of a Speakership, and Lemieux accepted, but it was a reluctant acceptance. He was really aspiring for a position of influence and power as a cabinet member. And being a Speaker does not mean that you have given up the ambition. The Speaker will still have the hope that someday in the future he might be selected a member of the cabinet. For this reason he would be beholden to the leader of the majority party. The Speaker will do the bidding of the government and how can you expect such a Speaker to be impartial? How can you expect such a Speaker to be unbiased when that burning ambition is still in the heart of the Speaker who is not really wanting to be a Speaker but wanting to be a cabinet member?

If this is the case, then we have something to analyze, as we have analyzed in the past. Those who have been reluctantly brought into the Chair as a Speaker will perform in a manner that is unbiased because they still have that desire to be a cabinet minister, and they have no desire to learn the technical rules of procedure or parliamentary law. It is just a stepping stone to another objective and goal in their political career. Therefore, their tenure will be short, and they will not be able to have the time to learn all the procedural rules and all the parliamentary rules necessary, as well as the attitudinal disposition of the mind to be an impartial arbiter in any House of the Legislature.

This being the case, they will make rulings that will not be sanctioned by precedence because they do not know any better. They have no time to decide, nor inclination to learn the procedural rule. That is not their ambition. As a result, there will be appeals from the rulings of the Chair and appeals will mostly be by people in the opposition party. If this is the case, the Speaker is placed in a position of antagonism now with the rest of the legislative members, and if you are in a such a position, how can you be impartial or continue to be impartial despite the fact if you decide to be impartial? It is indeed a tribute to the greatest Speakers of the past that despite this faulty selection process, some of them had risen above the level of politics and have become greater Speakers and among such Speakers as Speaker Lemieux of the House of Commons. He had indeed served three times as a Speaker, even beyond, because he finally appreciated the fact that this is a very important position, a very important function in the tradition of parliamentary democracy in this country and everywhere else.

This is the argument that I am presenting, a partisan selection leads to partisan performance as a Speaker; and a partisan performance by very definition cannot be impartial. A nonpartisan selection will lead to nonpartisan performance, and an nonpartisan performance by definition will be an impartial performance. If impartial performance is there, then the Speaker had achieved greater honour, greater respect, greater prestige, greater legitimacy as the holder of that August position, the Speakership of the House. Therefore, any Speaker who is selected by the electoral process of all the members of the Legislature will have more prestige, more honour, more legitimacy, than the one who is at the fingertip of the Leader of the government.

If such be the case, then all the members should appreciate the fact that this reasoning had already achieved its influence not only in the matter of parliament in the United Kingdom and all the rest of the commonwealth like Australia and New Zealand, even in this country the House of Commons has had elected Speakers. Not only the House of Commons, the major provinces in this country had already achieved such an advance from the past to depart from the appointed Speaker to the elected Speaker. Ontario, BC, Alberta, all these are leaders. Manitoba--what are we doing here?

Mr. Ashton: Buying time.

Mr. Santos: Time for ideas cannot be stopped, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has stated. It is not a question of whether or not. It is a question of when we shall go to the elected Speaker. If I were the Premier, I would want to have the honour of having changed this old traditional partisan practice into an impartial kind of system by agreeing to an elected Speaker and passing this Bill 200.

How else can you justify an elected Speaker when the outcome is what we have experienced in the most recent past? I really find myself sympathetic to the occupant of the Chair, because she cannot do otherwise. This is a difficult position to be placed in. It is like having two wives.

Oh, that reminds me. Mark Twain was once arguing with a Mormon and the Mormon said, where can you show me in the Scriptures that polygamy is prohibited?

An Honourable Member: What?

Mr. Santos: Polygamy. Mark Twain was at a loss. You know, he could not find any prohibition anywhere in the Scriptures, so he quoted that phraseology, no man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.

Try having two wives and you will find life very, very difficult. [interjection] The same thing with reporting to two superiors at the same time. If you are an employee of the government and you have two superior officers giving you direct command at the same time, which one will you obey? This is the basic principle in administrative law, that there should be unity of command in the hierarchy of ranks. You only report to one immediate superior and nobody else, because if you report to more than one, you will find yourself in a difficult, difficult position.

The same thing with the Speaker. If the Speaker owes her position, her office, to all the members of the Legislature, she will be accountable to every member of the Legislature, from the greatest of them to the most humble of them. She owes it to every one of them. She will be impartial. He will be impartial. No other recourse except to uphold the dignity and prestige of the position of Speakership.

* (1740)

That is why it has been the practice long, long time ago in England to elect the Speaker of the House, and because it is a sacrifice, every Speaker of the House in the United Kingdom after a tenure of office--which is not one tenure but all the time, multiple tenure of offices--they are appointed to some honour, some peerage, of being a viscount of some other place.

Therefore, it is our task to understand and appreciate, learn from the experience of the past and avoid all the tragedies that could endanger and imperil our own Legislature in this province.

What does it take for a Speaker to learn all this? It is simply the kind of quality that is developed in the performance of the function of the office. It is a difficult thing to do, but it takes time to mature because you have to learn how to be able to serve all the members of the Legislature without appearing to be partisan or bias in any manner. You can be very congenial and at the same time maintain the social distance befitting the office of the Speakership. You can be very congenial without appearing to lose your wit or your sense of humour and still maintain the dignity of the office. Those are the qualities that have developed in due course of time after you have learned the intricacies of the parliamentary rules and the rules of procedure and the attitude and mental disposition that befits a great and honourable Speaker that merits the respect of all the members, not only of the Legislature, but all the members of our province.

The Speaker is the only representative of the House of the Legislature. She represents everybody when she deals with any external agency or any ambassador or any representative from any foreign country. That is why she must have all our support. Without our support, the Speaker can do nothing, but with our support, despite all the obstacles, the Speaker is bound to be a great Speaker. We need to understand this in a dispassionate way. We have to emerge and be able to lift ourselves above the level of ordinary petty quarrels and all the emotional outbursts in this House. But these are expected; we are all human beings. We cannot devoid ourselves of all this emotion and all this passion that makes life interesting. If life were all logical and all pure, it would be a very dull, dull world to live in. That makes it very interesting. How can there be light without darkness? How can there be goodness without some kind of deviation? But it should be a deviation that is temporary and not permanent.

There are certain times when the Speaker should be able to appreciate the moods of the House despite the existing literal rules of procedure. When she has that capacity to appreciate the mood of the House, when to be flexible, when to be firm, when to run the Legislature in a strict discipline and when to allow certain kinds of camaraderie among all the members despite partisan lines of division, then I will say the House will be a good place to be, a good place where everyone will enjoy the experience rather than be frustrated and rather than be carried into the emotion of bickering and hatred and all the other things that characterize any human society.

It is my task, therefore, to say that the bill that is before us, Bill 200, deserves unanimous approval of any true member who represents his or her constituency more than anything else, who represents the people of this province rather than one member who happened to be the Leader of the majority party. Every member of this Legislature is accountable to their own constituents and must explain their vote in this important legislative measure before us, elective or appointed Speaker.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I have listened with interest this afternoon to the contributions made by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). I have tended to concentrate or will concentrate more on the comments made by the honourable member for Broadway this afternoon in my comments, because I think as he often does, the honourable member for Broadway brings in some fairly well-reasoned concepts, sometimes gets his interpretation or makes his interpretation somewhat differently from what I would do or perhaps others too, but he does give us food for thought when he refers this afternoon to the concept of the difficulty of serving more than one master.

I think anyone could understand that given the interpretation or the facts that he applies to that concept, but what is missing, I say with due respect to my colleagues opposite, is that there is but one master in this Legislature, and that is the Legislature itself. It is not this member or that member or this group of members or that group of members. It is certainly not the presiding officer. The presiding officer is the servant of the House, not this group of members in the House or that group of members in the House or another group of members in the House--the House.

The honourable member's bill which calls for the election of a Speaker and set out in a format similar to what happens in the House of Commons, they bring that bill forward and their timing is all wrong. There is an old expression, the lawyers know it and my honourable friend the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) would probably back me up when they say that bad cases make bad law is that how that--

An Honourable Member: Harsh decisions make good laws.

Mr. McCrae: No. That is not what I am after. Thanks, anyway. Bad cases make bad law. If that is not the exact--

An Honourable Member: Bad cases do make bad laws.

Mr. McCrae: Okay. I have been reinforced after a try or two. [interjection] I appreciate that. What honourable members are opposite, I say with all due respect, are trying to do is to satisfy themselves on a particular topic, find a way to blame something else or someone else for a set of circumstances. This is a very human thing to do, and I recognize why honourable members opposite are doing that.

If the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will be patient, I will try to develop what I am trying to say so that he will, without interruption I hope, understand what I am saying. Not before the events of last fall have honourable members opposite made much of a case about some other system for selecting a Speaker, because I remember in 1986, when I was first elected, the first thing that happened in this House was that the Premier of the day, the then Honourable Howard Pawley selected from amongst the ranks of his caucus, out of his caucus room, one Myrna Phillips to be the Speaker of this House.

Madam Speaker, that was not a popular choice. It was his choice to make under those rules, but honourable members opposite never refer to the difficulties associated with that particular selection. Our caucus at least had the courage upfront to say we do not approve of this appointment, of this selection, and, well, the rest is history, but honourable members opposite have never referred to those days. They have never made reference to the performance of Myrna Phillips in the Chair of this House.

To the point about serving one master, it is a very important matter, a very important distinction. With all due respect, Madam, you are not the master of this House. The House is the master of this House. The presiding officer is the servant of the House. In that capacity, our presiding officer has carried out the wishes, demands, the orders of this House, and that has not been pleasing to honourable members in the New Democratic Party. Because they were unhappy about the Manitoba Telephone System, they found a way to scapegoat somebody, and, in this case, it was the presiding officer of the House. And all of that--they still talk about to this day--they did it yesterday and I believe Friday--yes and Friday--it is all focused in one place. Never do honourable members opposite look in the mirror, Madam Speaker. In the process of this agenda that they are on, they have forgotten the people of Manitoba; they have forgotten the agenda of the people of Manitoba and have concentrated instead on an agenda of self.

* (1750)

Madam Speaker, when we as legislators get into that mode, we are no longer appropriately discharging our duties as servants of the people, and whatever one might think about the merits or lack thereof of what is contained in the bill that we are discussing today--and it does make interesting parliamentary discussion as has been proved this afternoon by the honourable member for Broadway--whatever is in there is a smokescreen, because honourable members opposite have been conducting a vendetta now for several months. It is very important because that vendetta is getting in the way of the ability of members of the New Democratic Party to carry out their functions as elected representatives of the people.

It has gotten in their way of discussions of opening up this Legislature, this particular session of this Legislature. It disrupted the opening day of this particular session, that particular vendetta honourable members are on. It is something the people of Manitoba can see through, the people of Manitoba want us diligently to--[interjection]

Madam Speaker, I forget where I was. The honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has been carrying on a debate from his seat opposite in the Chamber, and I think that I sat very quietly. I did not heckle the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I did not interfere in any way with the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) or the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), as they attempted to put forward their arguments in favour of this bill and I would appreciate it if the honourable member for Dauphin would have enough courtesy to sit quietly in his seat.

If he does not want to listen to me, that is all right, but I think he owes the House, if not myself, some courtesy, with respect to the discussion this afternoon to allow a little quiet and decorum to exist in this House as I try to address the issues raised by his colleagues--three of them, Madam Speaker, and I am the only one from this side of the House to speak this afternoon. I think the honourable member for Dauphin--it would be appreciated if he would sit quietly or sit somewhere else.

The honourable member spoke of the requirement of a sense of humour, and that sense of humour ought to be resident in presiding officers of legislatures. Also to be part of the demeanour of members of a legislative assembly, a sense of good humour and a sense of good nature is absolutely essential for the proper functioning. Now the honourable member for Dauphin says, are you for this bill or you are against this bill? Madam Speaker, whether I am for this bill or against this bill is quite irrelevant; the bill will not be the subject of a decision today.

I want my comments to be taken into account by those who might have some trouble with this concept. My point is, the timing the New Democrats are using is totally wrong. The time to decide on the best way to choose your presiding officer is not at a time of conflict, as we have seen in recent months in this place. The time is when you can have a rational look at the issues.

The honourable members in the New Democratic Party, with all due respect, are not rational these days. They have a mind-set; they are conducting a vendetta, Madam Speaker. With that in mind, how can you possibly make rational decisions? The sense of humour is missing. I see honourable members opposite--well, the demeanour of the member for Dauphin this afternoon demonstrates very clearly, there is no such thing as a sense of humour with that particular member. I suggest perhaps others are a little more generous of character and have the required sense of humour to carry out their duties properly.

Without that sense of humour, you cannot work with people. All you can do is be angry at them all the time. If all you ever are is an angry, sad person, then you are not an effective person in carrying out your duties as an elected person. If you are sad, look in the mirror. I say this to honourable members opposite who have displayed a very low level in terms of a sense of humour. I do not say that about the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), because he is the person who raised the matter, and I think that he raised it effectively and appropriately this afternoon.

The whole thing is that the honourable member for Broadway has missed the point here in terms of his reasons for rising in debate today and his reasons for supporting the legislation. He is quite entitled to it, and I respect him for supporting the legislation. Indeed, there are different ways of selecting presiding officers and that is something that can be looked at any time. The wrong time to look at it is when there is dissension in a Legislature.

I do not care what kind of system you have for selecting your Speaker. If you have members in a House whose prime purpose day in and day out is to disrupt, to waste the time of the people of Manitoba, to waste the time of the Legislature, to conduct personal vendettas, I do not care what kind of Speaker you have, nothing is going to work very well.

I think honourable members opposite need to look in the mirror, examine their own situation. As I listened to the honourable member for Broadway talk about the difficulty of serving more than one master, my first thoughts went sympathetically to the honourable Leader of the Opposition whose shoes I would not want to be in these days. When I look at the benches opposite and I look at the disparate group of people there who represent every kind of different point of view--very often at odds with the point of view brought forward by any leadership over there, the opposition House leader, or the Leader of the Opposition--I think they are having a very tough time in the ranks of the New Democratic Party these days.

It would be interesting albeit not enjoyable to be a fly on the wall of the NDP caucus, because who knows what might be flying around in there. Certainly if the rhetoric we see in this place and in front of the TV cameras represents the NDP, it must be a very difficult place, indeed, the NDP caucus room.

But, Madam Speaker, that serving one master is something the Speaker must do. The Speaker must serve that one master, the Legislature, and the honourable members of the New Democratic Party have totally missed that point. They think they are the masters because they are the opposition. It is true parliaments are designed for talk. The word "parliament" flows from the word, I think it is "parler" or some such word. It means to speak, and that is what this is about. Honourable members opposite have chosen to hide the blame for what has been happening, which is their fault, and to try to point the blame in the direction of the presiding officer, it is a pretty cheap way to go about public business. The people of Manitoba are already onto them. They are going to have to get on with the real world and to get on with their real duty, which is to serve the agenda of the people of Manitoba instead of their own very narrow, personal agendas.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I rise today, as well, to put a few humble words on the record with regard to--[interjection]

I hear some vague maunderings coming from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) across the way. I would say that that almost borders on abuse to the person. That sort of ties into some of the comments that I would like to make, because I would like to talk about respect of office. I look at this clause which is in The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act and it reads as follows: "Until Rules are adopted by the Legislative Assembly governing the procedures for the election of the Speaker by secret ballot, the election shall be conducted to the extent possible in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons respecting the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons."

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) will have 14 minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).