Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I am rising on a matter of privilege because I feel that my rights as a member of this Legislative Assembly, as well as the rights of all members of this Assembly, and most particularly, members of the opposition benches, have been violated by the actions of this provincial government and, more specifically, by the actions of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik).

Madam Speaker, during the course of my discussion I will outline to you why I believe my and our rights have been violated by the Minister of Health. I will also argue to the merits of the particular case.

To start off with, Madam Speaker, I am rising on the first occasion in this Chamber on which I have had an opportunity to deal with this specific issue, because a matter must be raised at its earliest acknowledgment.

Madam Speaker, in terms of rights in this Chamber, I have risen and we have risen on many, many issues, and the issue and the facts that I am going to cite to you are in support of my argument. Our argument may not seem as significant perhaps as other privilege issues or other matters of substance that we discuss in this Chamber. Today I know, for example, we will be discussing many issues of substance, some quite literally life and death matters. Perhaps the facts in this case are not as significant as some of those issues, but nonetheless when our rights are violated, and when we cannot do our jobs properly and accurately in this Chamber, that indeed is a serious matter.

Madam Speaker, we are all considered honourable members in this House. That is why we are told in this Chamber--and we respect the tradition that we ought not to say to members opposite that we have been deliberately misled because we take on a prima facie basis the fact that members opposite and the members on all sides of the House do not deliberately mislead this House or do not deliberately mislead each other because of the significance of what those words might have.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Health did mislead me and did mislead the committee that was studying the health care and did so deliberately. That reflects not only on my rights and my fellow members' rights in this Chamber but reflects on the rights of all Manitobans to have the work done in this Chamber that ought to be done, have the laws passed that ought to be passed and have the rules respected so we can do what is best for the citizens of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, we rely on the word of members opposite to carry out our jobs. Let me cite one example. Let me cite one example of that in order to set the situation. During the Holiday Haven fiasco that occurred in this House in October of last year when we raised the issue of problems at Holiday Haven, I was assured and we were assured by the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) at that time that an investigation would take place and that people in Holiday Haven would be protected. Subsequent to that, people who had families at Holiday Haven phoned me and said, is it safe to have my parent at Holiday Haven? You know what I told those people? The Minister of Health assured me, he assured me that things would be looked after with respect to Holiday Haven, and I said, I do not think your family is in danger at Holiday Haven because I have assurances that they are investigating. Now, subsequent to that, we know what happened at Holiday Haven. There was a death and there is now an investigation.

* (1335)

But that changed my view of this House, and I have said it many times in this House. I am not the same member I was before that, because I relied on the words that were spoken in this House. I relied on the integrity of members opposite to conduct what they were going to conduct in that regard, and I believe, in that instance, that they did not live up to their words, but that is not the substance of my motion today. As I said earlier, the facts in this case may not seem as significant as some of the other issues, but it is illustrative of a pattern, I believe, that has developed in Manitoba for the past several years for members opposite not to tell the whole truth, to deliberately withhold information, and that is the substance of my motion today. Let me lay out the facts for you on which I am basing my motion.

During the course of the Estimates debate for the Department of Health, we asked the Minister of Health to provide a list to all members and to the citizens of Manitoba of who composes the health boards in all of the regions. Now there has been a longstanding debate about these regional boards. Some have called for elections. Some have called--indeed, the government had suggested that only they have and should have the right to appoint these members, and they have gone on and done it, mostly retired Tory candidates, mostly Tory card-carrying members, but that is another issue. Nonetheless, the government has appointed board members all across this province.

So, when we asked the Minister of Health to provide a list of board members, he complied. The Minister of Health provided us with a list of board members. In fact, he even included on those lists of board members members who had gotten into already political hot water, individuals who were spending some time out of the province. But what is significant, on May 29, when the minister provided me and all of members of this party and the members of the Liberal Party and members of the Manitoba public with a list of who comprised the Churchill Regional Health Authority Board, we have Mark Ingebrigtson, Linda DuBick, Myrtle de Meulles, Paul Watts, Percy Kabloona and Jean Simailak, and those are what we accepted to be the members of the regional health board in Churchill. I accepted that. That was on May 29 in writing. It was a tabled document in the committee, which is a tabled document in this House, and we accepted it at face value.

Subsequently, we learned of another appointment to a regional health authority of another individual, Madam Speaker, and that was on June 19 in this Chamber when we asked the Minister of Health whether one Mike Ogborn had been appointed to the regional health board, and the minister confirmed that one Mike Ogborn had been appointed to the regional health board. So we found out that there was another appointment to the Churchill board. Now there is some political controversy over that appointment, but that is not the substance of our arguments before you in this Chamber.

The fact was on May 29 we asked the minister to table a list of all regional health authorities. He did, but a name was excluded--one Mike Ogborn and on June 19, we find out that Mike Ogborn is included on the Churchill regional board. Now perhaps that was an error. Perhaps, in error, the minister did not include the name on the list. That has been known to happen. I am subsequently led to believe that in fact one Mike Ogborn was appointed a chair, was appointed to the Churchill board on May 15, in fact two weeks before we received the list. Whether or not that was the case, it could have been an accident, but there is further evidence. The minister handed out a list on June 19. The minister provided a list on June 19 of those who were on the Churchill Regional Health Authority. Whose name appears on that list that the minister handed out June 19? One Mike Ogborn. Mike Ogborn is on the list the minister handed out June 19. Mike Ogborn was not on the list that he handed to members on this side of the House May 29.

Madam Speaker, perhaps the argument was it was a clerical error. That can happen. Perhaps that was a mistake.

An Honourable Member: Catchup.

* (1340)

Mr. Chomiak: The minister indicates from his seat that it was a catchup, and that is possible. The problem is, on the list that the minister handed out on Thursday, June 19, the list is dated April 23, 1997. So the minister handed out a list dated April 23 that had Mike Ogborn on. He handed out a list to members on this side of the House dated May 29 that did not have Mike Ogborn on, and what is that left for members on this side of the House to conclude?

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from this set of facts. The first is incompetence, that it was a mistake and incompetence. But you know, I have criticisms of the Minister of Health but incompetence is not one of them. The only other conclusion is that the minister deliberately misled this House by keeping that appointment secret. Madam Speaker, in your last ruling and in previous rulings--I have reviewed your rulings with respect to how we can prove a matter of privilege and the last ruling that you indicated is that we have to show some kind of intent. Now, I know and the member who is also a lawyer, the member for Lac du Bonnet, the minister also knows that the most difficult area to prove in any kind of a charge is intent. Volumes, courses, whole studies are taken on how one proves the matter of intent.

I think the question of intent goes clearly to the facts of this case. It is clear that there was a document dated April 23 that had Mike Ogborn on. There was a document dated May 29 that had Mike Ogborn not listed and that was a document provided to us and all the public. And let me remind you, Madam Speaker, this is not an esoteric argument. These are the people who are responsible for spending hundreds and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on health care, so this is no minor issue in the scheme of things. These are the people, the people on these lists whom the government has entrusted to develop our health care system. What was the intention? Why did the minister not provide us with the name? Was it accidental? I think not. I think it was deliberate in order to not provide us with the name until after this House no longer sat so it would not become a political issue and again embarrass the government. There is no other rational or reasonable explanation for the minister to have misled members of the committee in this House with the providing of that list.

So I think the issue on its facts is fairly clear. I know you are going to take this and you are going to rule on it, and you are going to subject it to a question of what was the intention of the minister. The intention is fairly clear. The minister handed out a list to members purporting to show that that is who is representing us in health care, but he withheld one name because he knew, and his actions on Thursday illustrate how sensitive the government and the minister are to that particular issue. His actions both in the Chamber and outside the Chamber are illustrative of how sensitive the government was on this issue. It is very clear, not just from the minister's actions but from his words, that the intention was to let the appointment go by until this House adjourned so the public would not know. Then, if it became an issue in the summertime, no attention would be directed towards it.

That is why I move, Madam Speaker, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba censure the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) for his deliberate breach of privilege of members of this House in the matter of information made available regarding government boards, appointments to the regional health authorities and, further, that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Motion presented.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the honourable member has to satisfy a couple of requirements with respect to a question of privilege. I will not argue the question of the timeliness, but I will make a comment or two on whether the honourable member has made a prima facie case. That is necessary in order for Your Honour to make a finding that the motion should go forward.

In the ordinary course of events in this House during Question Period, we are not, for example, as ministers--as is sometimes done in the House of Commons and certainly in Westminster it is routinely done, that notice is given of questions to be raised. That is not done in this place, and ministers are very often required to have information at their fingertips. Sometimes they do not have information of a detailed nature at their fingertips. But with regard to the type of question being raised by the honourable member, any requirement for anything further to be said about that, that opportunity can be made available for honourable members. No doubt the honourable member feels quite strongly about this. He will no doubt be entitled by his caucus to ask questions about it in Question Period if there is any further clarification required.

There is nothing prima facie that the honourable member has said that indicates that the Minister of Health in any way has done anything in a deliberate way to mislead or to withhold. That has not been the demeanor of this minister nor has it been the approach of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in matters dealing with detailed information. I know that from time to time both sides can get involved in some rhetorical questions or rhetorical responses which may sometimes lead the listener or the reader to impressions that probably do not reflect the reality of what happens here, but, Madam Speaker, in a prima facie way it is very clear that the honourable member for Kildonan has not made out a case that would require the mechanism laid out in his motion. I would invite Your Honour to review what has been said today and previously on this matter and return with whatever finding you deem appropriate.

* (1345)

In any event, I suggest that the honourable member could seek further clarification from the minister, and the minister would be forthcoming with that. It is simply not a question of any deliberate handling of the issue on the part of the Minister of Health whatsoever, so there are other ways to deal with this besides through the mechanism of a question of privilege.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I regret in speaking on this matter of privilege that it is not necessary, I am sure, to repeat much of the background in Beauchesne about what is a matter of privilege, because all too often we see what I believe is a systemic pattern in this government, an unprecedented pattern of ministers and of the government, in general, refusing to provide accurate information, deliberately refusing to provide accurate information not only to members of this Legislature but to the public of Manitoba.

I want to just deal very briefly with what are the tests for a prima facie case of privilege; that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity, I believe this clearly meets that test; that the member raising the matter must conclude with a motion that provides for a remedy, a reparation that I believe is met by this member, and that sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of privilege has occurred to warrant setting aside the regularly scheduled business of the House.

The key element to decide, Beauchesne Citation 31, is fairly clear on whether this is simply a case of once again our being misled in this House or whether there was any deliberate intent involved with the actions of this minister and indeed whether that intent would lead one, through any objective analysis, to assume that there could have been nothing more or less in this case than a clear intent to deliberately mislead the House.

I want to point, Madam Speaker, to the various Speakers' rulings for the Manitoba Legislature. Speaker Walding in 1985, Speaker Phillips in 1987, Speaker Rocan--I note, by the way, the significant number of rulings that have been made since 1988 in regard to misleading statements made by a minister. That, coincidentally, is the date which this government came into office. Speaker Rocan made two, four, five separate rulings on the question of intentionally misleading the House. I want to go back to a ruling that was made by Speaker Phillips in 1987, and I do this because, ironically, the matter of privilege was raised by the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier. I want to read the detailed background provided by Speaker Phillips, and later used by Speaker Rocan, in pointing to the key issue, whether it is intentional misleading or not.

This is from Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 205. Maingot makes a very specific distinction between misleading and deliberately misleading: To allege that a member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege, and it is not unparliamentary whether or not it is qualified by the adjectives "unintentionally" or "inadvertently." To allege that a member has deliberately misled the House is also a matter of order and is indeed unparliamentary. However, deliberately misleading statements may be treated as contempt.

* (1350)

It is Maingot that is the underlying basis of Beauchesne and the rules of this House in terms of matter of privilege. So what one needs to do is look at the question of whether indeed there was contempt because this minister deliberately made misleading statements in this House. Well, let us look at the evidence, Madam Speaker, because--and I want to table copies of these two listings of the regional health authority for members and for your own perusal. Now what is interesting is--the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) pointed to--this is not a matter of clerical error, and I want to note here that there is one that is dated April 23, 1997, and it lists one Mike Ogborn whose address is listed as the fourth floor, 255 Clayton Street, Denver, Colorado. It lists his business and fax numbers both in Denver, a matter that was raised in this House, indeed last week, whether it was appropriate. We were dealing with regional health. The last I heard the Churchill region did not reach as far south as Denver, Colorado. I do know many of the people resident in Churchill, and when I note that there are three members on the board from Churchill, I had the feeling that we could probably find any number of people in Churchill who would suit the purpose of being a regional health authority, particularly if this government gave the people of Churchill the opportunity to have a vote on regional health authorities, something they have refused to do.

But I note, Madam Speaker, that there is another list. Now the date on this is May 28 and guess which name is missing from this list--Mike Ogborn. Now what is interesting is, what is really interesting is, which list was given to the member for Kildonan when it was requested in this House that a list be provided of board members. It was the list that was dated May 28. Last week we got this other list, the real list, dated April 23, 1997.

An Honourable Member: From the minister.

Mr. Ashton: And by the way, both given to us by the minister, both given in this House, both purporting to give information on what has happened. It is interesting, because we all note, I believe, and I use this term advisedly, but I would say the only way to describe the minister's behaviour last Thursday that he went ballistic in this House. He was flailing around. I mean, a very simple question was asked: whether it was legitimate to have somebody from Denver, Colorado, sitting on the board. Then he turned around, went out to the hallway afterwards, said if you are against having this person on the board, you are against the Bay Line, you are against Churchill. He kept raising the ante. Then he said the person was on the board to promote economic development. I look again, and it says the Churchill Regional Health Authority, not the Churchill regional development corporation.

Madam Speaker, I note that the minister went out of his way to respond on this matter, and it showed, I believe, the fact that this minister had been waiting for this question to be raised. I mean, surely the moment he became aware of the fact that there was a request that somebody be appointed from Denver, Colorado, that must have twigged something, and I think his behaviour on Thursday shows that.

So, Madam Speaker, you have nothing more to do than to look at these lists and look at the actions of the minister in this House on Thursday than to come to only one conclusion, and that is that the minister deliberately misled this House when he did not provide information indicating this member of the regional health board, Mr. Ogborn, was on the board going back, according to the minister's own document, to April.

* (1355)

Why should we be concerned about this? I suppose some might suggest it is not unusual for this government to make deliberately misleading statements. They certainly did enough of that in the election, and we know there is nothing we can do other than hope that people will remember in the next election the number of times they deliberately misled the people of Manitoba. I could just mention the Winnipeg Jets, MTS and a few other major examples of the degree to which this government, led by this Premier (Mr. Filmon), will deliberately mislead people in this province, but, you know, we do have recourses in this House. When statements are provided, when information is tabled in this House, we do have ways of fighting back, and it is through a matter of privilege.

I must say there is a bit of a bitter taste on members of the opposition when it comes to this--and, by the way, I want to indicate that Mr. Ogborn was saying publicly back in April that he was going to be appointed to the regional health authority. I just have been advised of that by my colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). We may not have had much success in having our matters of privilege always dealt with in the way they should be in this House, and I just think back to the last session.

Madam Speaker, if ever there was a case of privilege, if ever there was a case of someone deliberately misleading the House, it is shown here in this document, and this document, you can make only one ruling and that is the minister did deliberately mislead the House. It is clearly a prima facie case and let us get to the bottom of stopping this deliberate pattern on behalf of this government of contempt for the Legislature and contempt for the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to put a few words on this very serious matter, as all members are very keenly aware of the seriousness of matters of privilege. Having had the opportunity to go through the documents that were, in fact, tabled, there were a couple of questions.

Prior to getting into that, I would strongly suggest that you, as the Speaker, should go through some of the health care Estimates. It is not necessarily to defend the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) per se, but one of the things that I have found about this particular minister is that he has been fairly accommodating for requests for information. Now I say that because, using the documents that were tabled, I noticed on the April 23 list that was provided by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), it has also the name of Vince Verma, which does not appear on the May 28 document. That is the same list that has Mike Ogborn. It would seem to me on the surface that, in fact, maybe this list--and I have not talked to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik)--was not the final document, because not only was Mike Ogborn not on this particular list and not on the list that was tabled on May 28, but there was another individual. So just at a glance, when I look at it, it would appear that the one list was not the individuals. Maybe they did not accept. I do not know.

Madam Speaker, why do I bring it up in the fashion in which I have? On numerous occasions I get very frustrated with this government in many of the actions that this government takes. That frustration often leads to follow-up questions, to trying to get to the bottom of an issue. One of the things that I have found is that different ministers react in different ways to questions. Some of them are a little bit more straightforward. The key here is, have we been successful at demonstrating that this was intentional? Did the Minister of Health intentionally, deliberately attempt to mislead either the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) or me or any member inside the Chamber using the documents that were tabled and not having talked to the Minister of Health myself but basing it on the relationship that was there between the Minister of Health and members of the opposition, not just myself? I believe that the Minister of Health could have and should have possibly even asked the question of the discrepancy prior to rising on the matter of privilege. That is what I would think first-hand.

It is not necessarily--I am not doing this to defend the Minister of Health as opposed to establishing that, as a matter of privilege, we could stand up virtually on a day-in, day-out basis and question--like, many could question the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), in terms of his actions with respect to the financing of the other casinos, McPhillips and Regent, in terms of the Winnipeg Jets and what this government did with respect to the Winnipeg Jets. There are many different issues that come up inside this Chamber, and outside, in terms of the committees. Those issues, Madam Speaker, even though in many cases we disagree wholeheartedly with the government, sometimes we get somewhat frustrated and we want to find out what exactly this government has been up to in dealing specifically with issues.

With those few words, Madam Speaker, I would strongly suggest that you do review the papers that have been tabled, solicit some sort of information from the Minister of Health and possibly review Hansard during the Health Estimates. Thank you.

* (1400)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, as someone who has been a member of this House for quite a number of years and always prided myself on the importance of Parliament and its institutions, let me first of all say that I appreciate that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) does have a right to raise this point, but there is a difference in the two documents, and that is worthy of an explanation. Whether one raises it privately or in this public Chamber, he has the right to do so, and I respect that the member does have that right to do so.

Madam Speaker, I have always prided myself as a member on trying to be as accurate as possible in the information that I provide to members. I have tried during Estimates--I think the member has acknowledged the fact, as has the member for Inkster, that we have been very forthcoming with requests for information. I also say very sincerely to this House, I have never tried nor will I ever try to hide decisions that I make as minister. I am accountable for those decisions, and we have debated that particular appointment last week in this House and we will debate it again. I would just like, for the interests of this House as well, to table today both a copy of the letter recommending him from Churchill as well as the letter appointing him, which was dated May 9.

The issue is the two different lists. I have had during the course of the discussion here today a chance to speak with my staff, and I can indicate to this House that the differences in fact that both the list that was tabled in committee is one, and the member was there present in committee, and when I was asked for a list of those health authorities, I did not have staff from my office at the table. I had staff from the department. They in fact handed over the lists. I did not have a chance to review those lists. Perhaps I am at fault for that. I handed them to the Clerk of the committee and they were distributed. Regrettably, those lists were not up to date. As the member points out, there was another difference between the list that I provided last week. The list that I provided to the media last week was an up-to-date list out of my office on the computer where we keep track of these.

Madam Speaker, yes, an error was made. The copy of the list that was provided that the member has referred to was a list that was kept on my office computer where the most up-to-date lists of appointments are kept. The list that I tabled in committee, regrettably, was one from the department. As the member knows, it was departmental staff who were staffing me on that particular occasion, and it is regrettable. I do apologize to the member that that was not the most up-to-date list. I have no problem defending the appointments that I have made. I have never had an intention not to defend them. If the member was provided a not up-to-date list, I apologize to him and members of the House for that, but it certainly was not and never would be my intention to mislead the House.

It is regrettable that the sensitivity around this particular appointment by members opposite have led to this, as opposed to an inquiry, but that is their right to do, and that is my explanation, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. A matter of privilege is indeed a very serious matter. I will indeed take this matter under advisement and report back to the House.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I rise on a matter of privilege today, and I will be concluding my remarks with a motion. It regards the answers to questions posed in this House on Thursday, answers given by the Justice minister (Mr. Toews).

Madam Speaker, as a description of my matter of privilege, I want to refer back to the last election campaign and the election promise made on April 11, 1995, by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba. A news release was issued by the Conservative Party during the election, and it said: Filmon targets pimps, drug dealers. It goes on to say: Get tough stand just got a whole lot tougher.

Two extracts from that press release, Madam Speaker, say the following: Those soliciting sex from prostitutes will lose their vehicles, seized under tough new anticrime provisions unveiled today by Premier Gary Filmon. The release goes on to say: Filmon said the owner of a vehicle used in soliciting a prostitute will permanently forfeit that vehicle if convicted. The proceeds from the sale will go toward programs for counselling and training to assist young prostitutes to return to school and escape a life on the streets.

I understand that later that day a press conference was held. It was held at the Remand Centre, Madam Speaker. Subsequently, significant media attention transpired, and the Conservative Party, to say the least, got a lot of mileage out of this election promise. I believe it was a front page article, for example, in the Winnipeg Free Press that proclaimed in large letters: No wheels for johns, PCs say. Filmon vows to crack down on sex, drug trade by seizing property, and the article says in part: People who solicit sex from prostitutes would have their vehicles seized under a Tory campaign vow to take direct aim at pimps and child prostitutes. Then the Premier is quoted as saying in the article: The rules will be clear, Filmon said in a news conference at the provincial Remand Centre. If you profit from selling drugs or soliciting or from child prostitution, you will be punished.

There were other articles, Madam Speaker. The Sun talks about how Filmon will give the police the power to confiscate the cars of johns. I noticed an editorial, and I am just referring to the printed media; I cannot bring the videos in here, obviously. The Premier was talked about in a Free Press article, September 3, 1996. It said: Premier Gary Filmon spoke firmly and forcefully on April 11, 1995, about stopping teenage prostitution. The Premier held a press conference in the eye-catching decor of Winnipeg's Remand Centre to say that if re-elected the campaign was on. His government would confiscate and sell the cars of men who had sex with adolescent prostitutes.

Well, sometime later, I happened to hear the new Justice minister, the current Justice minister, say on the CJOB action line on February 21 on the issue of prostitution, I quote: We gave an election promise and I intend to fulfill that.

Madam Speaker, we have not been hearing much about it, and it is beyond two years now since the election promises were made. Then, lo and behold, Bill 38 is introduced into the Legislature, an act to amend The Highway Traffic Act, and in that act there is one section added to The Highway Traffic Act with six subsections. What the act allows for certainly is not seizure, and there certainly is not forfeiture of johns' vehicles anywhere in this legislation.

I read it carefully, Madam Speaker. All this legislation provides for is that if a person who follows alternative measures, in other words, there is a decision made not to proceed with formal court proceedings, the individual charged must go along with the conditions set out in the alternative measures program. What happens if the individual does not go along with those measures? Well, subsection 5 of that proposed section says that the registrar shall suspend or cancel the licence, refuse to issue a driver's licence, and so on. The bill only talks about licence suspension and, indeed, it appears to be a temporary licence suspension. One can actually enter a guilty plea, and then the suspension is off, it appears.

But there were some things that were missing from the bill. I did not understand the alternative measures program and, as a result of further inquiries, determined that the government had in consultation with the Salvation Army worked towards the establishment of a john school, which sounds interesting, Madam Speaker, but actually it is only a one-day, eight-hour seminar. That is to comprise the alternative measures under the bill. So, in other words, the scheme of the legislation, the government's actual new regime to deal with prostitution and johns, is licence suspension in the event a john does not attend john school for the one day. That is the government's scheme, as far as I can see by reading the bill and speaking with officials, and that is absolutely incomparable to what this government promised during the election campaign. There is no seizure; there is no forfeiture.

* (1410)

Now, Madam Speaker, I suppose one could argue that if you drive while suspended, you could have your vehicle seized. I think there is a regime of a 30-day seizure, and I think if there is a second offence in two years or so--and I am not being accurate on this, because I am not entirely familiar with that scheme--but I think there could be a seizure for 60 days or perhaps longer. But in this bill, there is no seizure, there is no impoundment, there is no forfeiture, there is no sale of a vehicle in order to assist young prostitutes. That is absolutely clear; it is in black and white.

So, when I posed the question to the government and to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in particular, on Thursday, the minister said the following, and I quote: "The bill is, in fact, one which will allow a motor vehicle to be seized, but there are some intermediary steps that the police thought would be more effective in dealing with this particular problem."

Then, in the next supplementary answer, the minister states the following, and I quote: "we believe this is an effective program consistent with what was indicated at the time of the election." Madam Speaker, this bill does not allow a motor vehicle to be seized. It does not, and this bill is not consistent with the election promises of this government. It is not a matter of argument. The bill speaks for itself.

Now, why would the minister make these comments in the Legislature on Thursday? It is quite obvious. He and the entire government is wholly embarrassed by this breach of an election promise, by this breach of a pledge, to the people of Manitoba to deal with what is a very serious community problem. The minister was so embarrassed that when he introduced the bill for second reading on June 5, he did not even describe this section of the bill dealing with prostitution. He concluded by saying: "We believe that Bill 38, which is now before the Manitoba Legislature, is a crucial tool to help us continue to provide Manitobans with levels of safety they have every right to expect on our highways and we ask honourable members of this House to support this measure." He was only referring throughout his speech to the measures dealing with drinking and driving that are contained in that same bill, even though it is a two-part bill. No, the minister was so embarrassed he wanted to try and liken the provisions of the bill to the election promise. He wanted to find the word "seizure" somehow to be used in connection with this bill when this bill does not deal with seizure.

Madam Speaker, one can have their vehicle seized for driving while suspended for a number of reasons which led to a suspension, but in no way is a refusal or a neglect to attend john school going to result in seizure or impoundment, in no way is one being a john and being charged going to end in seizure or impoundment or forfeiture of a vehicle.

The minister has deliberately misled this House and deliberately misled Manitobans to try and make them believe that the government's response to prostitution is in accord with the election promise. This is not a matter of just being too cute; it is not just a matter of embellishment; this is a matter of deliberately misleading the Legislature. As a result, since the minister's announcements, the public debate on this matter has been skewed; the public has been misinformed.

I went home on Friday, and I was watching on television a newscast. There was the minister again saying that this new regime was consistent with the election promises, and there was the telecast saying that, oh, if you do not go to john school, you will have your vehicle seized. Unfortunately, the Winnipeg Free Press also had that in there, not surprisingly, when the minister is talking about seizure within the context of one's not going to john school.

Madam Speaker, this is a contempt of the House. This is hardly forthright in what we expect of this government.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), that the deliberately misleading statements of the Justice minister (Mr. Toews) of June 19 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Motion presented.

An Honourable Member: Let him speak.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): He will speak. I have no doubt about that.

Again, the second time in the same day, we are dealing with another question of privilege which ordinarily should be viewed as a very serious matter. The rules respecting questions of privilege are known to honourable members on all sides of this House. There are two main ingredients. First is being the issue of timeliness in something that needs to be addressed, and the other issue is that of a prima facie case.

With respect to the last question of privilege, I could not argue on the first point and did not, but on this one I will. Bill 38, about which the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) talks, was introduced on May 29, was given second reading on June 5. All the while, Citation 115 of Beauchesne, as recorded on page 29 in Beauchesne's 6th Edition says, and I quote: "A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House."

The issue is one that the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) tells us goes back all the way to 1995, and the opportunity for further discussion about this bill will take place as we have scheduled that bill for tomorrow morning in the Law Amendments committee. I think that, with regard to the prima facie case of privilege and somebody's privileges in this place being abridged by the activities of this government or particularly the Minister of Justice, that argument fails, I am sure you will find, Madam Speaker, upon an appropriate review of the matter.

Anything further to be said about it might be said by the Minister of Justice either now or at the time of Bill 38 being before the committee. I will leave that in the honourable minister's hands.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I rise in response to the statements made by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). First of all, I would like to deal with the issue of the allegation that I was somehow embarrassed by this legislation. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who maybe has a few comments to add could in due course stand up and make those comments. Again, those comments that he is making from his seat are not very helpful in this discussion. Perhaps he could learn to control himself and rise at the appropriate time.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: The members opposite are making accusations in respect of people that they sent to my house during a strike to--well, if they feel they can send people to my house to intend to intimidate me, do that.

In any event, I am not embarrassed by this particular bill. In fact I can give a very clear explanation of what happened in respect to the notes. I was provided with speaking notes from the department in respect of Bill 38. Those notes were referred to me by my comments in the House. I would also note that the department at the same time made notes in respect of Bill 37, which is a bill that was introduced by my colleague the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay). Unfortunately, there seems to have been some misunderstanding in the department in respect to Bill 37, as though those referred to the john school, as referenced by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), appropriately enough. Bill 37 does not, of course, deal with that school. In fact, the notes are quite extensive, and I have no concern that the member in fact did raise that--it was appropriate for him to do so--why this initiative was not referred to.

Well, the notes in that respect are quite extensive, and I had every intention to refer to them during the committee stage where the minister is entitled to make an opening statement. Those notes set out in quite detail about why we are proceeding in the direction that we are proceeding. So it is not a question of embarrassment, as my colleague for St. Johns attempts to impute. It was a simple oversight that can be corrected easily at the committee stage.

* (1420)

Then the member plays with the idea that this is somehow going to be ignored by the public. The committee in fact reviews all sections of the bill. It is a public hearing. Members of the opposition are there. Questions are asked. The media is there. For him to suggest that type of motive is completely improper. It is similar--this is the same member who stands up and says in respect of Bill 206, asks the government to support Bill 206 when this is in fact a bill that was based on a Department of Health paper that he simply pirated and now passes off as his own legislation. This is the kind--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Toews: I am speaking on a matter of privilege.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister would contain his remarks to the matters at hand, very, very serious issues that he has to deal with. I want the minister not to raise another matter of privilege in this House and tell the House that the bill introduced, Bill 206, to deal with sniffing was our bill; every section is our section. If the government was putting forward that kind of legislation, we would have been supporting it. There has not been any such bill. He is misleading the House once again.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.

Mr. Toews: I am simply relying on the opinions received from the department that says this bill, in reference to Bill 206, looks very similar to the 1996 legislative proposal for Manitoba Health. So I am simply referring to that, but I am prepared to leave that.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I would support the comments by the member for St. Johns. It seems that any time that the minister gets criticized he seems to deflect--trying to attempt to deflect that by making personal attacks against the various people. If he was so concerned a few minutes ago about the department, perhaps he will be prepared to table that, and we can deal with a bill which, by the way, I believe is the intention of both House leaders to call later. So rather than distract from the matter of privilege, I would suggest you rule that the member for St. Johns was indeed in order and that the Minister of Justice should restrict his comments to the matter of privilege.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for St. Johns, regrettably the comments I heard were not relevant to a point of order, neither were the Minister of Justice's, so there was no point of order. However, the comments made by the honourable member for Thompson on the same point of order were more relevant. Indeed, the minister should be speaking to the matter of privilege raised and not to issues outside of the topic being discussed.

Mr. Toews: The issue then, in dealing specifically with this bill, is that indeed the comments and the concerns of constituents back in 1995 let the government look at this or let the government look at this particular issue. There clearly were steps taken by this government in respect of this issue. We know with the constitutional jurisdiction of the province and the federal Parliament, the primary responsibility for the issue of matters related to prostitution falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

We contacted the federal government by letter, by my predecessor, who asked that they in fact adopt the position that we indicated during our election campaign. The federal Justice minister was asked to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code to that effect. Indeed, those will be the subject of further discussions.

In the interim, we realize that there are steps that need to be taken in this area. So in order to ensure that we move in this direction, the government, including myself, consulted with departmental officials, who in turn discussed this matter not only with the police but with community organizations as well, and I find it interesting that members opposite indicate that when we make a statement in respect of what the law should be, if we proceed without consultation, then we are accused of ramming that through the Legislature.

When we pause and consult with--[interjection] Now, the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has some comments to add as well, and I am sure the Speaker will allow those in due course. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable members, this is not a time for debate or an exchange. This is time for the honourable Minister of Justice who was recognized to put his comments relative to the matter of privilege that has been raised against him.

Mr. Toews: So when we do not consult, we are accused of ramming legislation through the House. When we consult in order to reflect some of the concerns raised by community organizations or the police, then we are accused of breaking an election promise.

Well, Madam Speaker, in that scenario we can never win. If we listen to people, we are breaking some sort of trust with the people, and if we do not consult with the people, we are breaching some kind of trust with the people. Well, I prefer to continue to consult with the people of Manitoba in respect of this very important initiative, even though members opposite have no desire that we consult with the people of Manitoba. Frankly, I find that very unfortunate, given their stand on other bills, but it does not surprise me that they would continue to take this inconsistent position when it suits their narrow political means.

So the position, then, that we took after consulting with the police, and, indeed, discussing this with community organizations, was their position that there is a more effective way of dealing with this issue, and so we, in fact, took their comments into light. What their comments were is that we should, in fact, deal with the broader social issue that arises in respect of this matter, and they indicated to us the success of a similar program in both Edmonton and Toronto.

* (1430)

The Toronto statistics, in particular, were very, very interesting, Madam Speaker, and very relevant to why we have taken this particular approach. There are very few people--by that I mean johns--reinvolved in the situation that got them into trouble with the law by following this particular program. What this particular program does is it charges the johns an amount of money, the money then which is used to fund programs for prostitutes. This is a mechanism to recognize that the prostitutes have a very difficult life and that there has to be a mechanism to get them out of the very difficult situation that they are in, and this is very much supported by the police and very much supported by the community organizations that we consulted with.

Now, Madam Speaker, we have stated very clearly to the community organizations involved, as well as the police, that if this program is not effective in dealing with this particular problem, we will proceed to examine other legislative mechanisms. [interjection] Now the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), who perhaps knows better than the social agencies or the police and who is just sitting in his seat and talking, he can stand up and make comments as well. [interjection] Perhaps he can stand up and make his comments at the appropriate time when the Chair recognizes him.

If you look at the mechanism that has been involved or that is brought about by this legislation, in fact there are repercussions for the johns which in various circumstances do lead to the seizure of motor vehicles. We are not saying that this is the best method that one could proceed if one had the full criminal law power, but it certainly is a method that is an effective method and I believe moving in the same direction and consistent with the election promises that we made. We are committed to bringing about effective legislation and we will continue to do that. Thank you.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that government members would even applaud for that contribution on this debate, because I have not seen anything quite like it since the Monty Python sketch, you know, the dead parrot sketch, where they go and they sell a dead parrot to the customer. The customer brings it back and says, this parrot is dead. They go on for about five minutes with the pet store owner saying, no, it is not dead, it is not dead. It is alive. Look at it.

They promised to seize cars in the election. On Thursday, this minister said they were going to seize cars. The bottom line is, this parrot is dead. They are not seizing cars. They misled the people of Manitoba.

An Honourable Member: You are the dead parrot.

Mr. Ashton: The only thing that is dead, Madam Speaker, is the credibility of this minister and this government.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, to complete his remarks on establishing a prima facie case for a matter of privilege.

Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very straightforward matter. In the election they said they would seize cars, and even though we cannot hold them accountable, other than at the next election, for misleading the people of Manitoba deliberately, it is obvious they are not seizing cars of johns. It is a straightforward fact. Any more--I mean, the minister might have wanted to give the same speech to say they did not really sell off MTS and they actually did really save the Winnipeg Jets. It falls in the same category--fiction.

The bottom line is, they promised to do it. Even on Thursday, the minister went apoplectic when the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) suggested they broke the election. Well, what did the minister say? Well, they are going to seize cars. Today he comes in and he says, well, there was an oversight, and he read the wrong briefing notes. It is, blame the staff, blame the staff, blame the staff. The bottom line is, the buck stops with this minister and this Premier (Mr. Filmon). They misled the people of Manitoba in the 1995 election. They are not seizing cars. He repeated that statement in the House, so he did deliberately mislead the people of Manitoba and this House. He should be held accountable through this matter of privilege.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I too would like to put a few words on the record. You know, in the previous matter of privilege brought up by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), I think there were some merits to the matter of privilege in which the member for Kildonan had referred to. That is the reason why our recommendation was that you do take it under consideration, and I qualified it in the sense of what I believe that you needed to look at in order to come out with a good ruling.

Having said that, I want to read Beauchesne's Citation 27 where it states: "A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House."

In listening, in particular to the member for St. Johns, what we are talking about is the breaking of a promise, an election promise, and that is where in essence the base of--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lamoureux: We look at it, and this government has broken promises. I remember the former minister who talked about boot camps which turned out to be more like slipper camps. Now we hear of the tough stand against the johns of teenage prostitutes and how it has been watered down. There has been a great deal of dispute over facts, what I would argue ultimately. You know, it is great in the sense that it provides the opposition the opportunity through Question Period, through debates on second readings. There will be a third reading process on this particular bill.

* (1440)

When I think of matters of privilege, what I think of is--and many members in the House will recall--when the former Minister of Finance Mr. Manness walked out of a committee room, when in fact he believed that he no longer had to answer any questions, chose to walk out, thereby we lost quorum. That, Madam Speaker, denied members of opposition, anyone, from being able to question the government because he walked out of that particular committee. I can recall when we had a matter of privilege on a public entrance into the gallery above, into the Legislative Building with the student rally that was there. We talked about that as a privilege. I can recall shortly after the provincial election when I stood up here for the first Question Period time and time again trying to get recognized because we were not getting recognized. That was a matter of privilege.

The problem, as I see it, is that if you use a matter of privilege as a tactical move, it does marginalize the importance of the citation which I just cited because you start to trivialize the matters of privilege as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himself just said from the seat. We take them very, very seriously, as Beauchesne's indicates. There are so many disputes over facts that occur inside this Chamber, not only could we be standing up every day, we could be virtually standing up every hour as we debate bills inside this Chamber.

I have sat in here, as everyone else has, and heard the variations of truth, if I can use that, in which people can stand up and say, well, gee, you know, that is a matter of privilege, too. At times, as I would argue, it is necessary for us to bring up matters of privilege. I myself have used that particular mechanism in the past for the protection of my rights and the rights of my colleagues and the Liberal Party, and I will continue to use those.

I think that to a certain extent the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) did have some legitimacy to the concern. But the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has really and truly a dispute over the facts, and I do not even believe you need to take it under advisement at this point in time.

Madam Speaker: I will.

Mr. Lamoureux: In fact as opposed to prolonging this particular debate any longer than it already has gone--usually Question Period is well over, and we are into some sort of a debate by now--I think that this is a particular ruling that could be acted upon.

Again, I guess I would conclude by saying I agree with the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and some of the criticism on the government's policy on how it has broken election promises, and between myself and members of the opposition and others outside this Chamber, we will continue to hound this government for what we believe how they are distorting the truth and misleading Manitobans, especially on the whole taxation issue. But we will ensure, through whatever means we can, in holding this government accountable, but we recognize as a parliamentarian that the matter of privilege is something which should rarely and seldom be used, and we do not want to see it get marginalized in any fashion. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: I thank all honourable members for their advice. Indeed, a matter of privilege is a very serious matter, and I will review all comments made and report back to the Chamber.