Monday, May 27, 1996

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, May 27, 1996

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I am rising this afternoon on a matter of privilege and at the first opportunity that I have had to do so since examining the Hansard of Thursday, May 23. This matter will be followed, according to the rules, by a substantive motion which I will introduce at the end of my comments.

Recently, Madam Speaker, we have been discussing in this House the aftermath of the Headingley riots and the early release of sexual offenders. On Tuesday, May 21, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) about the release of, and here I quote from Hansard, “several sexual offenders,” and I underlined that my expression was, and again I quote, “several sex offenders.” This expression is directly quoted from Hansard.

The minister responded by saying, and again I quote from Hansard: “There were in fact three inmates who were injured at the time of the riot and these three inmates were, to my knowledge, considered close to the end of sentence, and though they did not participate, they were in fact assessed by correctional officers. They were released under the direction of professional correctional officers.”

I point out and underline that the minister spoke of the release of three sex offenders, that I did not in my question ever cite that number or ask about three inmates. The number was entirely the minister's. After a series of utterly amazing obfuscation and attempts to dilute the substance of Question Period, the minister concluded this series of questions by saying, and I quote from Hansard: “I have explained that there were three. . . . Their release was on . . . humanitarian grounds.”

On Wednesday, May 22, I asked the minister about 11 sex offenders and again obfuscation was the order of the day. The minister made no comments on my numbers and made no emendations to the information she had put on the record on Tuesday, May 21. Then on Thursday, May 23, in response to another question from me which cited 11 inmates released early, among them three rapists and eight child molesters, many of whom had refused treatment, the minister made a decision, I suppose, to come clean. She said, of 44 sex offenders before the riot, 31 remain in prison, leaving 13 as the number released. The minister accounted for five, one of whom was released on bail. Eight, I presume, are floating about various Manitoba communities.

This minister then proceeded to attack members opposite, which would include me, for publicly speaking about four inmates. A careful perusal of the record will show that I never cited the number four, not once. A careful perusal of the record will show, as I have just shown, that the number of early released inmates made a quantum leap from three to 13, about 400 percent. First there were three and then there were 13. This sounds like the refrain to a song rather than ministerial information. In between, the opposition were accused of chasing the media by saying there were four early released inmates.

* (1335)

Madam Speaker, I know that on Friday, May 25, the minister said in Estimates on Justice that she was never told and never asked about the state of temporary absences, leaving me to wonder how she could speak so authoritatively about sex offenders on the previous Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, leaving me to wonder if the minister knows anything about the intimate workings of Manitoba's prisons.

Madam Speaker, to be frank, I find it staggering and insulting to be asked to believe that this Minister of Justice, in the wake of the largest, most damaging prison riot in the history of Manitoba was so misinformed, so totally lacking in knowledge and facts that she did not know on Tuesday, May 21, or Wednesday, May 22, nearly a month after the riot, that 13 sex offenders, including one on bail, had been released. Common sense says that she had these facts at her fingertips and made a deliberate decision to save face to cultivate her reputation as tough, a law-and-order Minister of Justice and, consequently, she made a deliberate decision to mislead this House.

How can I, as a member of an elected constituency, do my job, fulfill my duties when the Minister of Justice deliberately misinforms this Chamber? How can I, as the critic for the Status of Women, work to promote the full range of services and protection which women are guaranteed when this minister compromises my ability to function by misleading the Chamber? How indeed can any member perform his or her duty when a minister provides misleading information?

Madam Speaker, this is not according to Beauchesne Rule 30, a dispute over the facts. This is a dispute over the integrity of the Minister of Justice and, by implication, an infringement on the rights of other members to truthful answers, for while I understand that ministers are not required to answer questions, I understand, too, that when a minister does answer, truth must inform that answer. From three to 13, an increase of 400 percent. The facts speak for themselves, demonstrating an inability, incapacity or unwillingness to deal with the fundamental issue.

Madam, Speaker, I ask you to examine this situation and rule on it.

I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), that this House do censure the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) for a breach of privileges of its members in the matter of making deliberately misleading inaccurate statements about the release of sex offenders in the wake of the Headingley riot, and that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, before I respond, I wonder if I might have a copy of the member's motion.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader has requested a copy of the member's motion.

* (1340)

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, a question of privilege, as cited in Beauchesne on a number of occasions and elsewhere in learned documents relating to parliamentary procedure, is a matter of extreme importance and extreme rarity, or ought to be. There ought not to be matters of privilege being raised very often in any parliamentary forum.

I looked at the member's motion, and thank you for having that distributed, but the fact of the matter is, based upon what I heard her say, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), and what is referred to in the motion that was brought before us, it is very clearly a dispute over the facts.

Madam Speaker, this is a she-said-this, she-said-that type of thing. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. The fact of the matter is that the member for Osborne wanted to stand up and make a political grandstand play by censuring the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) over a bunch of facts that were alleged or unalleged.

Clearly on page 76 of our own rules, it states: “a dispute arising between two members as to allegation of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.”

Madam Speaker, that is quite clear, and I ask you to rule against the matter of privilege because clearly a dispute over the facts does not represent the basis for parliamentary privilege. Simply to stand up and want to grandstand, as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has done and now the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) is doing, is something that ought not to occur in parliamentary forums because it is not a matter of privilege.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same matter of privilege, I believe that the member for Osborne has made a very good case for her motion.

First of all, according to Beauchesne, 6th edition, the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Today is the first opportunity that we have had a chance to review Hansard from Thursday, May 23. It was on all our desks today at 1:30 p.m.

Secondly, the member must prove a prima facie case. What does prima facie mean? Prima facie means on the face of the record. It means obvious from the record; it means the case is clear from the record. What we have here is a very serious allegation about what the minister knew, about what the minister said, and what the minister did not acknowledge. Under parliamentary tradition and parliamentary responsibility, even if the minister did not know what was going on in her department, she is still responsible, and she should not put false information on the record in answer to a question. She should take it as notice, she should find out what the accurate and correct information is and only at that time respond. That is the reason why our member said that it is deliberately misleading to the House to provide inaccurate and wrong information, and why you should rule in favour of this motion to censure this minister.

In conclusion, I hope that you will agree that there is a matter of privilege here, that the privilege of many members has been abrogated because this minister is not providing clear, forthright and truthful statements about activities for which she is responsible as the minister responsible for this department and ultimately the minister responsible for all the goings-on at Headingley jail. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable members for their advice and I will take this matter under advisement and report back to the House.