Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) on May 12 rose on a matter of privilege asserting that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) had deliberately misled the House because of the inconsistencies in the minister's versions of events regarding the appointment of judges to the Provincial Court of Manitoba and moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I wish to thank the honourable member for St. Johns, the government House leader, the opposition House leader, the Minister of Justice and the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for their advice to the Chair on the matter of privilege.
The two tests for a matter of privilege are: one, was the matter raised at the earliest opportunity, and two, is there sufficient evidence that the privileges of the House have been breached to warrant putting the matter to the House.
With respect to the first test, the honourable member did raise his matter at the earliest opportunity. With respect to whether the member has made a prima facie case, I would refer members to precedents established by rulings of Speakers Walding, Phillips and Rocan, as I did on March 13 of this year when ruling on another matter of privilege. These rulings clearly indicated that a deliberate misleading of the House involves an intent to mislead and/or knowledge that the statement would mislead. Perhaps more importantly, Speakers Walding, Phillips and Rocan 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.
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot sustains this opinion. On page 234 he states that an admission that a member of the House 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 wish to say at this point that, short of a member acknowledging to the House that she or he deliberately and with intent set out to mislead, it is virtually impossible to prove that a member deliberately misled the House.
In reading the Hansard, I would agree, as the member for St. Johns phrased it, there was "a series of inconsistencies" in the statements of the Minister of Justice between May 7 and May 11. However, that is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of privilege. Speaker Rocan on June 19, 1991, was very clear on this matter when ruling on two different matters of privilege. In the first instance a minister had asserted one set of facts in Committee of Supply but made a contradictory statement later during Question Period, and in the second instance a statement in Supply was later repudiated in a press release.
To paraphrase from one of those rulings: while the minister may well have contradicted himself, the member for St. Johns has not furnished proof that the minister deliberately set out to mislead the House. Although the member for St. Johns may have a grievance or a complaint against the minister, I must rule that he has not established a prima facie case of privilege and rule his motion out of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, with regret, since we certainly agree with much of the text of the ruling, we do challenge your ruling that it is not a prima facie case.
Madam Speaker: 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.
* (1430)
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Order, please. The motion before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Cummings, Derkach, Driedger (Charleswood), Driedger (Steinbach), Dyck, Enns, Faurschou, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed.
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Jennissen, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 20.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan). If I had voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.