Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House.

On June 6, the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) raised a matter of privilege about a document tabled in this House on the 5th of June. I believe there are two main points in the case put forward by the minister: (1) he contended that the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) deliberately misled the House by tabling a document which was a fabrication; and (2) he asserted that an aspersion had been made by the honourable member for Elmwood that information that he, the Minister of Government Services, had provided to the House, that being the 1993-94 Annual Report of the Fleet Vehicles Agency, had been altered.

As previous Manitoba Speakers have ruled, there must be proof that a member intended to deliberately mislead the House in order for a prima facie case of privilege to exist. As Speaker Walding noted in a ruling given on June 13, 1985, “it must be borne in mind that a deliberate misleading of the House involves an intent to mislead and/or knowledge that the statement would mislead.”

On June 5, the honourable member for Elmwood, during Question Period, stated: “I would like to table copies of the annual report of Fleet Vehicles Agency Advisory Board, 1994-1995, and I would like to ask the minister to explain to us why the original copy of the annual report given to us had both of these people listed as members. Could he explain that, and why the report was changed?”

In speaking to the matter of privilege the House leader of the official opposition stated that questions posed by the honourable member for Elmwood were based on an earlier document that had been given to the NDP caucus that was different from the final document tabled in the House. The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) argues that the real annual report is the one he tabled and the record does show that the version of the annual report of the Fleet Vehicles Agency tabled by the minister while he was raising his matter of privilege is a copy of the official annual report previously tabled in the House.

As Speaker, I must rule on the basis of the fact presented to the House. What we have are two different documents and different views of what they are. All members of this Chamber are honourable members, and I, as Speaker, and indeed this House must accept the word of each honourable member. In fact, Beauchesne Citation 494 states that it has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. On rare occasions, Beauchesne reminds us this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident. As I indicated earlier, a case of privilege requires that proof of intent to mislead the House be furnished. From the facts presented by the Minister of Government Services, I do not see that a case has been made.

Addressing the second part of the minister's matter of privilege, that being his claim that aspersions were made by the member for Elmwood alleging that the annual report was altered, I find in reading the record that the member for Elmwood did not directly charge that any documents had been altered. Therefore, I find no prima facie case of privilege exists.

I have a second ruling for the House.

On June 6, 1996, during Question Period, the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) raised a point of order about an answer provided during Question Period by the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister). The opposition House leader said that the minister in his answer was referring to a matter taken under advisement by the Speaker and that the minister was not answering the question posed to him.

I took the point of order under advisement to allow me to review Hansard. Having done so, I find that the minister had indeed begun his answer by referencing an issue which I had taken under advisement, which the minister should not have done, but that the minister did then respond directly to the question that had been asked, which was: when would he would provide copies of a study and copies of letters?

The opposition House leader did have a point of order in that members are not to refer in debate or in Question Period to issues which have been taken under advisement.

* (1420)