Madam Speaker: I have several rulings for the House.

I took under advisement on April 9 a point of order about the answer provided by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to a question posed by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). The point of order was raised by the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton), and both the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) spoke to the matter.

I have reviewed Hansard, and I am ruling that there was a valid point of order. The Premier did contravene Citation 417 of Beauchesne because he was not dealing with the matter raised, and he was provoking debate. I would ask the First Minister, when answering questions, to comply with the provisions of Beauchesne Citation 417.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the House that our Rule 38(2) states that debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order. Neither the Premier nor the Leader of the official opposition were strictly relevant in their submissions, and a portion of the opposition House leader's submission went beyond the procedural matter he was raising in his point of order.

I ask for all members, when raising and when speaking to points of order, to follow our Rule 39(2) and keep their comments strictly relevant to the point of order.

I am ruling on a matter of privilege taken under advisement on April 18, 1997. The honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) raised a matter of privilege concerning a news release issued for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), and in doing so stated that the minister had put incorrect information in the news release and had not corrected it, despite having been given the opportunity to do so when questions had been asked of him during more than one Question Period. Thereby, the argument continued, the minister had misled the House. The honourable member for Radisson then moved "THAT this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections."

The member did raise the matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity and did conclude her remarks with a motion. The other condition required for a matter of privilege to proceed is that sufficient evidence that a breach of the privileges of the House may have occurred must be presented to warrant giving the matter precedence over all other business then before the House. Having reread Hansard, it is clear that this is a dispute over the facts. The member for Radisson believes that the news release indicates that the value of the materials to be reclaimed from the housing complex on Behnke Road was $100,000, while the news release issued on behalf of the minister could be interpreted to read that the value of the materials is $540,000.

* (1430)

Past Manitoba Speakers have ruled on several similar cases. Speaker Graham, on March 6, 1980, ruled that a dispute between two members as to allegations of fact did not constitute a breach of privilege. Speaker Phillips, on August 21, 1986, in her ruling referred to page 205 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, which reads: "To allege that a Member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege and is not unparliamentary whether or not it is qualified by the adjective 'unintentionally' or 'inadvertently'. To allege that a Member has deliberately misled the House is also a matter of 'order'."

Speaker Phillips went on to say, "it is clear that a Member has breached the privileges of the House or committed a contempt against the House by misleading the House only if the Member has clearly done so deliberately. A Member raising a matter of privilege which charges that another Member has 'deliberately misled' the House must support her or his charge with proof of intent. No such proof was presented by the Honourable Member."

Speaker Rocan reiterated these points in his ruling of June 13, 1991, when he said: "To allege that a Member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege and a motion of privilege should be worded in such a way that another Member is alleged to have deliberately or intentionally misled the House." Speaker Rocan also stressed that the member raising the matter of privilege must furnish proof of intent to support the charge.

I must therefore rule, based on the parliamentary authorities and past rulings of Manitoba Speakers, that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established by the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I thank the Speaker for her ruling. I just want to clarify for the record that the ruling does not deal with the other issue that I raised, and that is that the minister and the news release indicated that the units were vacant, and they were not vacant. They were filled when the government said the department had those tenants evacuated, which then led to the units being vacant. So that was also part of what was misleading to this House and to the public of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for--the honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As you have pointed out in your ruling, previous Speakers Rocan and Phillips and Graham--I am not sure if you named any others in the ruling--have ruled that statements which are not the subject of agreement, even incorrect ones, may indeed amount to a point of order but ought not to be the substance of a question of privilege.

So I am wondering if the honourable member, by raising this point of order, is asking that this be considered as part of the previous question of privilege already ruled on or if it is coming up as a new point of order. If it is a new point of order, then Your Honour might well want to look at that, but I would not want to see the question of privilege revived in view of the reasoning given in your ruling today.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Radisson that if she disagrees, the appropriate procedure and practice in Manitoba--and only in Manitoba, I might add--is to challenge the ruling that she disagrees with, challenge the Speaker's ruling, and a point of order raised on a ruling is not in order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, then we will challenge your ruling.

Madam Speaker: Okay. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

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. Ashton: On division.

Madam Speaker: On division.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) on April 11 raised a matter of privilege respecting his Resolution No. 5 being ruled out of order on the previous day. Advice was received from the honourable member for Broadway, the government House leader (Mr. McCrae), the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton), the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), and from the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer), for which I thank them.

When a matter of privilege is raised, it is necessary for the Speaker to examine two issues; first, was the matter raised at the earliest opportunity? I am satisfied that the member for Broadway did rise on his matter early enough to comply with his requirement. Second, the presiding officer must be satisfied that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify giving the matter precedence, or as Beauchesne puts it, that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed.

I believe there were two major points made by the honourable member for Broadway in his submission. I will address first his argument that his privilege of freedom of speech had been removed because he was unable to debate private members' Resolution No. 5 as it had been ruled out of order. Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, on page 31 reads, "Freedom of speech cannot be a true freedom to a Member if he is not able to speak free of all constraints, save those imposed by the legislature itself."

On the matter of limitations on freedom of speech, J.A.G. Griffith and Michael Ryle in the publication Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures on page 88 say that freedom of speech "does not mean that Members can say whatever they like at all times, because the House itself, and the Speaker on behalf of the House, can restrict the content of speech in debate and other proceedings, such as motions and questions."

The honourable member for Broadway had a second point I believe should be commented on--that point being his procedural question of how could his private members' resolution be ruled out of order when it had been placed on the Order Paper. I wish to assure the honourable member that at the time his resolution was filed, March 3, indeed it was in order. However, events which occurred after the receipt of his resolution did render his motion out of order. Let me explain perhaps in more detail than I did on April 10.

On March 4, the honourable member for The Maples moved an amendment to a matter of privilege which read "that this House move immediately to the election of a new Speaker by secret ballot, following the current Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia regarding the election of a Speaker." This House made a decision on that amendment when it was voted upon.

Also, another matter, that being Bill 200, sponsored by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), appeared on the Notice Paper on March 5. On March 20 Bill 200 was listed on the Order Paper under Second Readings during Private Members' Business. So, even although the text of the private member's resolution of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) was seen by all members before the content of Bill 200, Beauchesne Citation 566.(7) is clear that "A motion dealing with the same subject-matter as a bill, standing on the Order Paper for second reading, cannot be considered."

In the Griffith and Ryle publication cited earlier, respecting the ability of a presiding officer to rule on the admissibility of motions, on page 204 reads: ". . . motions which repeat motions which have already been agreed to or negatived in the current session, or which anticipate a matter already due to be considered by the House which is likely to be debated in the reasonably near future . . . may all be ruled out of order and not called for debate even though they have been allowed on the (notice and order) paper . . . Members can table motions on almost anything: whether they have a chance to move them and have a debate is quite another matter."

* (1440)

A review of past Manitoba Speakers' rulings shows that a number of Speakers have ruled on private members' resolutions; five were ruled out of order for anticipating a bill and seven were ruled out of order for reviving debate.

Therefore, for two procedural reasons, Private Member's Resolution No. 5 was ruled out of order when it was brought forward by the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) on April 10. According to the parliamentary authorities cited earlier in this ruling--Maingot and Griffith and Ryle--there was not a breach of the privilege of freedom of speech. I must therefore find that the honourable member for Broadway has not made a prima facie case for a matter of privilege to proceed.

I am ruling on a matter taken under advisement by the Deputy Speaker during Question Period on May 6, 1997. The opposition House leader raised a point of order concerning the content of an answer provided by the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to a question placed by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). The First Minister said: "I am not going to make ad hoc policy here based on a critic's desire to get some publicity."

The opposition House leader's point of order was that the First Minister, in contradiction of Beauchesne Citation 484, was imputing unworthy motives to the honourable member for Crescentwood. I am ruling that indeed there was a point of order, and I am calling on the honourable First Minister to withdraw the words in question.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I will make the point that I accept unequivocally your ruling and I will absolutely withdraw the remarks, but I would point out, if I may, that throughout the period of time in this House and in our actions as members of political parties, I do not think that a desire to get publicity is an unworthy motive in the eyes of most people in this Chamber. Having said that, you have ruled that, and I unequivocally accept your ruling and withdraw the comments.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister.