Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that under Rule 27, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to the community obstetrics posed by this government.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Inkster, seconded by the honourable member for St. Boniface, that under Rule 27 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to community obstetrics posed by this government.

Regrettably, I must advise the honourable member for Inkster that procedurally his motion is out of order on the basis of our Rule 27.(1) because the required notice was not provided. The rule states that prior notice of one hour is required. The notice from the honourable member for Inkster was received in my office at 10 a.m., and the House met today at 10 a.m. Because the procedural requirement was not met, I must therefore rule the member's motion out of order.

* (1420)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I know that, given the circumstances of negotiations between all parties in this Chamber, as a result of those negotiations, we had made special exception to allow us to sit this morning. I do believe very firmly that members of this Chamber, at least very firmly that the official opposition would be supportive of allowing this particular explanation of the matter of importance, given the special circumstances surrounding the flooding and how we are trying to compensate for some lost time. I guess I would appeal to the government to allow for us at least to explain why it is we should be able to have this particular urgent matter debated.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, even if one were to ignore altogether the lack of time limits, and by that I mean the technical requirement of our rules to provide notice within an hour of the sitting of the House, even if the honourable member had satisfied that requirement, and I really do not have that big of a problem with that aspect of it, but the honourable member's motion here fails on the more substantive and less technical aspects of his application here in the House today.

So we do not place a lot of weight on the problem, on the failure of the honourable member to meet the technical requirements, because I agree, because of circumstances prevailing in Manitoba right now, members in all of the parties have been extremely co-operative--for which I thank them all--at a very difficult time in Manitoba's history, to allow for the Legislature to continue working under very, very difficult circumstances. You, Madam Speaker, would know as well as or better than most how difficult the circumstances have been. So we do not rest our case on the timeliness part of it, although I understand why that is a fatal flaw in the application here today. The issue we would argue on would have to do with the substantive nature of the motion itself, which has to do with obstetrics at Grace General Hospital.

Madam Speaker, this matter has been the subject of discussion for years in Manitoba. There is nothing magical that happened yesterday or the day before, and nothing magical is going to happen tomorrow. This is an extremely important matter--obstetric services in the city of Winnipeg--and so due deliberation is required and remains to be done before final determinations are made. The honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is in the process of completing appointments to the Winnipeg Health Authority--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable government House leader that we are not and should not be debating whether the motion meets the criterion for all other business to be set aside. What I believe the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was requesting was if there was support to disregard the fact that the motion is procedurally out of order because it did not meet the time requirements as expressed in our Rule 27.(1).

The honourable member for Burrows, to speak to the procedural issue.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order as the member for Inkster, we believe that, since numerous rules have been set aside in the last several weeks, we are willing to give leave to have this matter of urgent public importance debated, and we hope that all parties in the House will give leave to debate it.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on that same point of order.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I agree with the honourable member that there ought to be a discussion of this matter, but certainly under the rule for emergent debate, no. The Estimates of the Department of Health are about to come on. Last year we spent about 54 hours on Health. There is all kinds of time available to the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to raise these issues in the Estimates.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to waive the procedural requirement that was not met under Rule 27.(1)?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.