Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
On April 8, 1998, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) brought forward a matter of privilege claiming that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) showed contempt for the House by deliberately making misleading statements.
I wish to thank all honourable members for their advice to the Chair on this matter of privilege.
I am satisfied that the honourable member raised his matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity. With respect to whether the member has made a prima facie case, I would refer the House to rulings by Speakers Walding, Phillips and Rocan who have clearly indicated that a deliberate misleading of the House involves an intent to mislead and/or knowledge that the statement would mislead. Further, Speakers have ruled that when one member charges that another member has deliberately misled the House, the member making the charge must furnish proof of intent. I do not believe the honourable member for Thompson has provided proof to the House that the ministers in question intentionally or deliberately misled the House.
* (1420)
Joseph Maingot, in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (second edition), states that an admission that either a member of the House was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that lead naturally to the conclusion that a member was intentionally misled, and a direct relationship between the misleading information and a proceeding in parliament would be necessary to establish a prima facie case of a matter of privilege. I have carefully read the Hansard transcripts of April 6 and 7, because they were referenced by the honourable member when he raised his matter of privilege, and I can find no indication of an admission on the part of the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), nor do I see how it is possible to reach that conclusion based on the statements that appear in Hansard. I must find, therefore, that there is not a prima facie case for a matter of privilege.
It appears there are conflicting perceptions of a set of events. However, as our rule book states, "a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, since I do not think there is any doubt that this government has misled the people of Manitoba time and time again deliberately on MTS, we challenge the ruling. How many more lies do you have to go and put on the record?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. 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. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Faurschou, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Ashton, Barrett, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 22.
Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.