Madam Speaker: I have three rulings for the House.

On October 29, 1996, during Question Period, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) regarding an answer to a question provided by the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon). The point of order was that the Premier was not replying to the question raised. The opposition House leader did have a point of order. I ask the honourable First Minister to comply with the requirements of Beauchesne Citation 417 which directs that, when answering questions, ministers are to deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate.

A further point of order arose while the opposition House leader was raising his initial point of order. I indicated to the opposition House leader that his saying "the Premier still is not the dictator of this province" was, in my opinion, unparliamentary, but I undertook to review Hansard in order to carefully review the context in which the words were used.

I would draw to the attention of the House that Beauchesne Citation 486 advises that "it is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking . . . and . . . sometimes upon the degree of provocation that the Member speaking had received from the person alluded to."

Therefore, having reviewed Hansard, it is my opinion that the phrase used by the opposition House leader on October 29 was out of order, and I am calling upon the opposition House leader to withdraw the words.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, I most definitely withdraw the phrase that the Premier is not the dictator of this province.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson.

I took under advisement during Question Period on November 7 a point of order raised by the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) about an answer provided by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to a question posed by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). In raising the point of order, the opposition House leader referenced Beauchesne Citation 417 that answers should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate.

The opposition House leader did, indeed, have a point of order, and I ask the honourable First Minister to comply with the requirements of Beauchesne when answering questions.

I took under advisement on October 31 a matter of privilege raised by the opposition House leader about alleged "misleading statements and misrepresentations of the minister responsible for MTS and the Premier made on the sale of MTS." I thank all honourable members for their contributions as to whether or not a prima facie case of privilege was made.

In order for a Speaker to find that there is a prima facie evidence of a matter of privilege, there are three conditions to be met.

First, was the matter raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) at the earliest opportunity? Beauchesne Citation 115 states that "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."

Also, rulings of Speaker Fox on March 16, 1972, and Speaker Rocan on November 27, 1990, reference the necessity for timeliness. In the case of the matter raised by the opposition House leader on October 31, I do not believe that his matter of privilege was raised at the earliest opportunity. He spoke of statements made by the minister in March and by the Premier in April of last year as being contrary to what was announced in May of last year.

The second condition for a matter to proceed is that the member raising a matter of privilege must provide the House with a reparation or remedy. The opposition House leader did propose a motion that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, so the second condition has been complied with.

The third condition to be met is that sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of the privileges of the House has occurred. I must find that the third condition has not been met. As referenced in my ruling of November 4, Joseph Maingot in the book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 191 states that "allegations of misjudgment or mismanagement or maladministration on the part of a minister in the performance of his ministerial duties do not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege."

Further, the motion moved by the opposition House leader does not charge the ministers with any deliberate or intentional action to mislead the House, and I am not convinced by his argument made when he raised the matter that he has made a case of proof of intent of the ministers to deliberately or intentionally mislead the Legislature.

I must therefore rule that the honourable member for Thompson has failed to establish a prima facie case of privilege and must rule his motion out of order.