Madam Speaker: Now, the honourable member for St. Johns.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns was recognized to speak on a matter of privilege when the House disrupted very rudely.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Well, Madam Speaker, I will go through this now. Once again we have a Minister of Justice, keeping in mind that justice begins in the office of the minister, once again has misled this House, and I say deliberately because he had full opportunity from sources within his own department, in his own office, to ascertain, to check and to come back to this House. He could have, in answer to my question today, withdrawn his statement from yesterday, his little gotcha. He likes to play gotcha. But every time he plays that little game he is a loser at it.

Just to go back, it was over four years ago that as a centrepiece of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) election-time announcements, The Parental Responsibility Act was promised as a crackdown on youth crime. Those were his words, "crackdown on youth crime." That was set out in a press release, big headlines, big story all over the province, and the main part of that crackdown was the promise that parents would be made responsible by this government for restitution to the victims of property crimes committed by their children, and that was promised, and I use the words of the Premier, to keep Manitoba's streets and neighbourhoods safe, April 10, 1995.

So that led me to a question yesterday in the Legislature based on information that we had received from the Court of Queen's Bench and officials within the minister's department indicating that not a single parent has yet been found responsible financially under this legislation since this legislation was announced four years ago and proclaimed almost two years ago. That information could have been wrong, but it was information that we had a right to rely on. It was information that we had confirmed two or three times, and as late as Monday.

So I asked the minister yesterday: "would he tell us how many parents have been found financially responsible under this act since it was announced over four years ago?" And he said: "I will take the question as notice from the member; I do not have those statistics here." And then I concluded with my second supplementary by asking: "will the minister instead admit that he does in fact know how many parents have been financially responsible? Will he confirm that since it was announced over four years ago not one single parent has been found financially responsible under the centrepiece legislation? How can this be a crackdown?"

So later on in the afternoon, it was in Estimates and in response to a question or some ramblings following a question from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), and this was in the Estimates for the Department of Justice, the minister said: "I know the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) stated today that there had been no cases in Manitoba where a case involved The Parental Responsibility Act, where a parent of a child, in fact, has had a judgment award against him. That is incorrect," he said. That is the gotcha, I guess, Madam Speaker. He said: "My information leads me to believe that there has been some success in that. Specifically, I am aware of a case in Flin Flon where a judgment was awarded against the parents of a child who had broken a car window with a rock."

Again, Madam Speaker, I just add this as a footnote, but imagine that, a minister thinking that the difference between no cases and one case was all the difference between a dismal failure and a runaway wild success. Today I asked the minister again, I asked him why he misled the Committee of Supply yesterday? He got up and he reiterated that in fact that information was accurate. Well, it was not accurate as far as our information goes, and the information is within the knowledge surely of the minister. Surely he knows, if he has information from that court, he knows that on January 25, 1999, a certificate of decision was entered which dismissed that claim. No parent has been found financially responsible under this legislation, and if he knows of another case, he can get up and say so, but the case that he referred to does not exist.

Now, this is in the context, Madam Speaker, not of one singular incident. It was only a couple of weeks ago that this minister flip-flopped, flip-flopped, flip-flopped four or five times on the so-called gang hotline, the cold line, and this is in the context again of serious discrepancies. It goes back to sticky fingers on the appointment of judges. It goes back to issues about what he knew about the Prosecutions branch being undersupported by his department. It goes back to issues as a Labour minister.

But, Madam Speaker, I have to be able to come in this House and act on information from the minister because I am accountable to the public based on information. But I have got information from his department, from the Court of Queen's Bench, and I have got different conflicting information from the minister which he maintains. It cannot be anything but deliberate. It cannot be.

I move that this House censure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) for deliberately misleading the House about the lack of judgments under The Parental Responsibility Act. I move, seconded by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).

* (1430)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I think I know where the member's motion is coming from. The member for St. Johns has wanted to make a motion in respect of my salary. He was asleep at the switch, and he missed that yesterday. So now he is trying to bring this up in this context. Madam Speaker, there were matters that I indicated yesterday that I would take as notice. After leaving the House, I did in fact receive some information from my department. I think it may well pay to go over the information that I received and that I was relying on from my department. As I indicated, I had reason to believe, or words to that effect, that in fact what I indicated was accurate. I know that my staff provided me with some information.

The information that I have received and which I am advised at this time is accurate–again, I have indicated I would take this matter as notice. It indicates that–and I will deal with that in some detail–from August 1998 to December 31, 1998, the number of Parental Responsibility Act cases filed in the Winnipeg Small Claims Court increased from a total of four to a total of 11. During the same period, the number of applications for youth court certificates of disposition in Winnipeg increased from a total of one to a total of three. However, the report goes on to indicate the applicants for certificates of disposition have not yet filed Parental Responsibility Act claims and none of the plaintiffs who have filed Parental Responsibility Act claims have applied for certificates of decision.

It goes on to break down the number of Parental Responsibility Act cases, indicating how many have been filed by private citizens, how many have been filed by insurance companies and how many have been filed by a corporation. It indicates that two of the claims were for amounts between $1 and $1,000, three claims were between $1,001 to $2,000, one was between $2,001 to $3,000 and five were between $4,001 and $5,000. It goes on to indicate, and I am quoting here that there have not been any claims yet for cases between $3,001 to $4,000.

Of the 11 Parental Responsibility Act cases, it indicates that two cases were dismissed after contested hearings. Again, that does not indicate to me whether they were settled and then there was a dismissal, and so there could well have been settlement. I do not have that information. Two have been discontinued, and again, that could have been as a result of a settlement. I do not have that information. Two have been adjourned sine die. Again, those two could have been settled and adjourned sine die, and one, it is indicated, has been adjourned pending completion of youth court proceedings.

It goes on to indicate that of the two cases that proceeded to contested hearings, one involved allegations of kicking out a car window, and the other involved damage to dentures as a result of an assault. It indicates in one of my notes here that the Flin Flon case proceeded to a contested hearing, and a judgment was awarded against the parents of a child who had broken a car window with a rock. That is the information I have received, and that is the information I related.

It also goes on to indicate, the briefing note, that the Selkirk case also proceeded to a contested hearing, so there is another indication here that there may well be another case. Again, I cannot confirm this other than the information I have received from my department. It indicates a judgment was awarded against the parents of the youth who had broken a gold chain of another youth and also damaged a vehicle. It goes on to say: The Selkirk case is very interesting because it is the first case in which a certificate of disposition was used to create a reverse onus in a contested Parental Responsibility Act hearing. Also, this was a case where the plaintive proceeded to court because restitution ordered in the youth court was not paid, so this was an alternative that was being sought.

The report from my office goes on to say: In some cases it is difficult for court staff to determine if a small claim is a Parental Responsibility Act claim because the plaintive has not indicated that on the small claim form or in the written description of the claim. In Winnipeg, the Winnipeg small claims manager scrutinizes each claim and checks with the hearing officer to determine if any small claims cases heard by them are Parental Responsibility Act actions.

A small claims hearing officer–the officer writing this report indicates to the recipient of the document that there may have been a PRA case, he states, a Parental Responsibility Act case in a regional small claims court that was not recorded in its statistical report. Unfortunately, small claims officers do not keep any detailed records of their cases, and there are no clerks in the regional small claims courts, so there is no way of tracing the case that was missed. It goes on: I have asked the small claims hearing officer to begin keeping track of any Parental Responsibility Act cases that they hear in regional courts and to have that information forwarded on to me when they return to Winnipeg.

So when I received information between the House and Estimates, I gave what information I knew at that time. I did not get into very much of the details, Madam Speaker, because the details simply were not clear to me. If the member says that the case in Flin Flon has been dismissed, I cannot argue with him if in fact that has happened. Here it indicates that a judgment was awarded against the parents of a child. It indicates the same thing with a Selkirk case, but there is a discrepancy in some of the facts that have been presented to me.

For example, it indicates here–and this was one of the concerns that I had in terms of releasing any information at that time beyond what I did–it says: Table A, Status of Parental Responsibility Act cases. It says, number of cases filed: Winnipeg, 11; regional courts, two; total 13. Requests for certificates of disposition: Winnipeg, three; regional courts, one; total, four. It says, cases adjourned pending outcome of youth court cases: Winnipeg, one; regional courts, zero; total, one. It indicates cases adjourned sine die: two in Winnipeg, none in the regional courts, and two in total. It says, discontinued hearings: in Winnipeg, there were two; in the regional courts, there were zero; in total, two. Contested hearings: it says two in the Winnipeg courts and two in the regional courts for a total of four. It says, judgments granted: in Winnipeg zero; in the regional courts, it says one, for a total of one.

Now the information that I have received, Madam Speaker, and which I related that I had some information to believe that this in fact was the case, was that there was at least one case. In the information that I have, in fact, there appears to be two. Now the member may have in fact other information that says that what my officials have provided me with is not correct. Table B, the breakdown of the Winnipeg parental responsibility cases indicates that there were cases in the amount of one to a thousand, two individuals, corporation zero, insurance zero, and goes through some of the statistics.

So, if this case, for example, went on to appeal and the matter was dismissed, that may certainly have an input in respect of what the final statistics are, but, as I indicated, Madam Speaker, I took the matter as notice to the House, and I do not think that anything I have said is inaccurate or indeed certainly misleading in even an innocent way. I think I simply provided the facts that I had at that time. There was some discrepancy on the face of the document that I had. That causes me some concern about what, in fact, the true issues are, and that is why the notice was given yesterday.

Some information was provided in Estimates, and, again, I do not know the total accuracy of all of the information that my department has provided me with, but, Madam Speaker, for him to suggest that this was in any way a deliberate misleading of the House just goes back to the issue that he missed the boat yesterday. He wanted to put a motion on the record to censure me for my salary. He was asleep at the switch and now in a very deliberate way brought this matter not to raise any issues of credibility but to disrupt the proceedings in this House.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I want to indicate that while we wish we could raise matters of privilege on what I would call the virtual reality campaign promises we see from the government, in actual fact this goes beyond even that. I think the facts are fairly clear. This government has brought in numerous programs.

I think they start by sitting down with their advertising agency. They think up the commercial first, and then they think up some sort of act to follow, and this is another example of that except in this case the minister was caught once again–I mean, this is a pattern with this minister–of trying to pump up this act and referenced a case which, in fact, as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) pointed out, was dismissed by the courts. So, in fact, we end up with once again one of these campaign commercial acts that does not work.

What I want to point out, Madam Speaker, is the minister is quite right about his salary, by the way. He may not have noticed there was a vote in the House. I do not know who was asleep yesterday. I do not know if he knows the process, that when we hit 240 hours worth of Estimates, in fact what happens is you then have a vote on the outstanding resolutions, and that is exactly what took place. I can guarantee you that indeed we were against this minister's salary, the only minister this session to be singled out in terms of his salary because this minister has proven by his behaviour, I believe, that he is not competent to be Minister of Justice in this province because he continuously gets into this type of situation.

He did it earlier this session on the so-called hotline, remember? This was the hotline that they did not return calls on for five months. This was the minister who said, well, the member for St. Johns had called eight times–

* (1440)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask you to draw the opposition House leader's comments to the matter of privilege that is before the Assembly: whether or not the member has misled the House. The opposition House leader is using the debate on the privilege to extend the Estimates debate. He is not addressing the issue of privilege.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I would ask for the co-operation of the honourable member for Thompson to speak to the matter of privilege, and that is that the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) deliberately misled the House.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, what I am trying to establish here is that there is a consistent pattern with this minister of doing this, of deliberately misleading the House on matters related to justice, and I say this with all due respect to the minister because I believe as Minister of Justice he has a responsibility to avoid the kind of careless remarks he has put on the record on a number of occasions, including in this particular case. I say this because we are seeking a censure motion of this minister. It is not appropriate for this minister to play the kind of game we have seen from this minister time and time again. He may think he is scoring some debating point here, but these are very serious issues.

When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) speaks on a matter such as this, we expect that minister to act appropriately. This minister did not in this particular case. I want to suggest, that is why we took the unusual step yesterday of voting against the Minister's Salary. That is an indication of no confidence in the minister based on his behaviour. I say that with all due respect to the member. I say as well, that is why we are bringing in this matter of censure.

I said to the government House leader, the reason we are documenting the other incidents of this session, let alone last session, who can forget the appointment of judges and that whole fiasco? The reality is, we believe we are dealing with a combination of fraudulent, and I say this very decidedly, fraudulent campaign promises. We see with the minister that he does not quite understand that instead of playing the debating games back and forth, he would be far better off being up front with the Legislature and the people of Manitoba and point out, as has been pointed out by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), we have another example of yet another campaign promise that just is not working in this province, that was not even worth the campaign ad that it was aired on.

I say to the government House leader and other members of this House, we expect a higher level of duty, particularly from the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice has a responsibility that goes beyond being a member of this Legislature or indeed of being a member of the cabinet. When it comes to serious issues, I believe we expect the Minister of Justice to provide factual information, to not get into the kind of situation we saw again where he made misleading comments, comments we believe were made deliberately. I say that on this matter of privilege, because as was well documented in the matter of order previously, we cannot say that on a matter of order, but on a matter of privilege we can point to the fact that once again this minister has done it. That is why I would urge you to find as a prima facie case of matter of privilege, particularly dealing with what we feel is the contempt of Parliament. This is one of the issues historically with privilege.

I point to Beauchesne that specifically cites the contempt of Parliament. If it was simply one incident, I would suggest we might say, well, that is an isolated incident, but this is a repeated pattern, and it is simply not good enough coming from this Minister of Justice. We believe he should do far more than just apologize, as he has had to do on many occasions. We believe it has gotten to the point where we have to vote against his salary. In this case, on the matter of privilege, indeed we have to ask this House to censure the Minister of Justice for once again I believe violating his responsibility as Minister of Justice in this province to be direct and forthright with the people of Manitoba, something he has once again proven he is unable to do. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that what we are witnessing here today is an attempt by the member for St. Johns to extend the debate of Estimates in the Department of Justice rather than raise a legitimate point of order.

What is most telling about the arguments that have–pardon me, Madam Speaker, a legitimate point of privilege. What is most telling about the comments of the opposition House leader and the member for St. Johns, members who are both regularly able to quote Beauchesne when making a point, is that they totally failed to cite Citation 31 where: "A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Conveniently missed by both, because really there is no issue of privilege here, what we have is an extension of the Estimates debate.

The member for St. Johns and his party had some 240 hours to debate the issues of Justice. Did they choose to spend an extra five or 10 hours on the Estimates of Justice? No. They did spend 32 hours or 30 hours, I believe, on debating the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a great tribute to one of their members who is here to do his duty in the Estimates time, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).

It certainly says that the member for St. Johns, who, given the flexibility we were allowing in setting the course of Estimates, could have spent many more of those hours, could have used 10 of those hours that were spent in Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Madam Speaker, to continue the debate on these issues in the Department of Justice.

The truth of the matter, Madam Speaker, we would suspect, is the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) was not there to do his job in Estimates, wants to continue the debate here today in this Chamber, raises this point of privilege. We have listened to not points being made on a matter of privilege, but we have listened to a continuation to debate on issues arising to the effectiveness of a particular piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, again, I convey the Citation 31 of Beauchesne: "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege" and suggest very strongly that there is no matter of privilege here at all but simply an attempt by the member for St. Johns, who was not there to do his job in the Estimates debate, to extend that debate now into Question Period by misuse of a motion of privilege.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. A matter of privilege is indeed a serious matter. I will take the matter under advisement to check with the authorities and research Hansard and report back to the House.

Officially Question Period had expired during the posing of the honourable member for St. Johns' question. Traditionally, we permit the individual being posed the question the opportunity to respond to that question. Given the lapse of time since the question was posed, I would ask if the honourable member for St. Johns, for the benefit of all members, would quickly repeat the question asked, and we will allow the honourable Minister of Justice, if that is to whom the question is posed, to respond.

* (1450)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, in listening to what the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is saying, there are a couple of things that come to mind and ultimately cause me to rise on a matter of privilege. I could have in fact articulated and stood up on a point of order, and on that point of order I could have said that in Beauchesne's 481 where it states that "Besides the prohibitions contained in Standing Order 18, it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member, while speaking, must not"–and as I quickly go through it–"make a personal charge against a Member." It also states that one should not "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member."

Madam Speaker, that would in fact have been a valid point of order, I would ultimately argue. But what concerns me more, because it has happened to me in the past, as a member we all have certain obligations which we all want to meet in the very best ways in which we can. You know, over the years I have had the unfortunate opportunity, in some cases, where there are different forms of intimidations that are being used.

When I made reference in my grievance, I talked about some of the tactics or some of the thoughts and some of the expressions I have heard directly in terms of what has happened in the Seven Oaks School Division administration, and these are all alleged comments. I realize there is a great deal of fear that is there. One of the things that is important in terms of our rules is that we are afforded the opportunity to be able to stand up and express the concerns that we feel are very important to all of Manitobans.

So, for example, during the Monnin investigation, what we heard was the NDP day after day, and justifiably so, we too had stood up and called and suggested all these unethical names and behaviours of Tory campaign managers or campaign workers, staff of the government, and there was a great deal of cynicism that was ultimately levelled at these people, their personalities, their character, and so forth. I would even go as far as to say that I might have participated in some of that dialogue, and for good reason. But I do not believe that I had stood up and attempted in any fashion whatsoever to intimidate or to shame the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) or the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) or any other member of the New Democratic Party for what they were doing, because I believe what they were doing then was in fact the right thing to be doing.

Even though over the years I have developed somewhat thick skin, one of the things that is important for me is the member's right not to feel that they are intimidated within this Chamber. That is the reason why I chose to stand up on the matter of privilege. The matter of privilege is suggesting that all of us have an opportunity to express in whatever ways that we can following the rules what are important issues not only to us but to all Manitobans. We should feel free to be able to express that and not have to worry about undue, I would say, or inappropriate comments, whether it is for intimidation purposes or to try to prevent someone from saying something.

I think that if the member for Crescentwood was to read his remarks at the beginning of his grievance, he will find that they were indeed quite strong and quite pointed on me as an MLA. To a certain degree, I think that I would be more forgiving or at least more open-minded, but this is an issue that the member has to realize came to me from a former NDP candidate, a constituent of mine who obviously felt that it was of some importance. That is the reason why I initially got involved in the issue.

As it proceeded, I can honestly say, and you might say that I am somewhat naive, is that I did not know Brian O'Leary at the time was the campaign manager of the New Democratic Party. The more that we got involved in getting some of the background of this, the more I argued both internally within our Party and externally within this Chamber that we needed to have an independent investigation.

Even though, as I indicated, that I might have that thick skin, I believe that there are individuals who are out there that have been intimidated in other forms, Madam Speaker. I think that we have to be cognizant of that and we have to respect that. I can appreciate that the personalities involved might be very good friends and close to the member for Crescentwood, and I know I would not derive any enjoyment of our campaign manager but, you know, when the New Democrats heckled and gave speeches and talked about our candidate in Minnedosa and the bribery there, it is something which I accepted. I did not care for it. It hurts when those sorts of allegations are being made, and so forth, but there was something that was wrong there. I recognized that and we do not support it, nor did I impute their motives on it. That is the reason why, as I say, we all stand here in hopes that we are going to be able to express the concerns that we have. I would ask members of the Chamber, do not try to impute the different motives that I might have.

In our rules it says that we are all honourable members. I did not impute motives on some of the questioning that was being posed with respect to the Monnin investigation and the calling back at this time, in June of last year, let alone stand up and then make fun of or instigate or make the same sort of allegations that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) was just starting off with respect to me.

It would be very difficult, I think, to intimidate me into shutting up and not saying what I really think is right and just. The reason why I chose to stand up on the matter of privilege today is more so for all members, because I think at times it can be very intimidating inside the Chamber. One needs to be somewhat cautious and take the issues for what they are. If one wants to heckle and impute motives through heckling, I myself have done that in the past to a certain degree, and to a certain degree that is fair game. It is part of the procedures that often will throw individuals off track and you might get something which you otherwise would not have gotten on the record.

* (1540)

But I think that we have to be careful, Madam Speaker, and even if you read the comments, because you might take this particular motion under advisement, if you read the comments, what you will find is that in Beauchesne there is this one great qualifier. That qualifier is that, look, yes and no, everything can or cannot be parliamentary. It all depends on the way which you state it. I do not know if I have time here to quickly find it here, but I think it is important.

This is Beauchesne Citation 491, where it says: "The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary."

I bring that up, Madam Speaker, because when you take a look at the matter of privilege, one of the things that you do not get is the context of the mood of the Chamber at the time when the member for Crescentwood was making the statements. All you are going to read is the verbatim and you will not catch the heckles. I guess ultimately you could listen to the tape, but even that does not give you the full context of what has been said.

So I would suggest that indeed it is a matter of privilege and for that reason I would be more than happy to entertain what the member for Crescentwood would have to say in regard to my comments, but suffice to say, maybe he might be able to change my mind on it. I do not believe I misunderstood what it is that he was saying or, more importantly, the context in which he was trying to put it.

I would ask the member to look at the fact that just prior to his standing, I just, and each member is given one grievance in a session, I chose my grievance on an issue that I believe is very important to Manitobans, and that is the integrity of the standard exams. So you will have to look at the fact that I took this time to express my concerns on the integrity of the standard exams. I looked to the member for Crescentwood, who then stood up, following me and then took great objection and definitely violated rules and ultimately might even have crossed the line in terms of the matter of privilege.

That is the reason why now, I would move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) be censured for his comments imputing my motives as an honourable member of this Assembly.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the member's comments because the member spoke on his grievance for 15 minutes and expressed his view, and they are strongly held views. While I do not agree with those views, that was his right.

The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) was beginning a process of doing exactly the same. The member referenced unparliamentary language. I know the member has been in this House for 11 years and has been, either in actual fact or certainly de facto, the House leader at times. I know the member for The Maples, I think, is officially. He knows that if it is merely unparliamentary language, that is a matter of order.

What I take some umbrage at is the suggestion that somehow the member for Crescentwood was doing anything other than what the member for Inkster had done, which was to express strongly held views. I realize, and I want to say this again, that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has every right to stand up for 15 minutes on this matter, and no one is disputing that. I would suggest–

An Honourable Member: Did you hear what he said?

Mr. Ashton: To the member for The Maples, I heard exactly what the member for Crescentwood said.

An Honourable Member: Were you in the room?

Mr. Ashton: For the member for The Maples, I was in the room, and I heard exactly what the member for Crescentwood said. I was actually sitting in my chair listening to the member for Crescentwood.

The point of this is, if the member for Inkster has concerns about unparliamentary language, the way in which to deal with that is through a matter of order. I say to the member for Inkster as well, particularly in this case, to censure the member for Crescentwood for unparliamentary language, one censures in this House for real matters of privilege, and one makes that argument. We did earlier in Question Period. I would point the member to privilege and the fact that contempt of Parliament, "the law of contempt of Parliament," 26.(2), is, indeed, that.

I say to the member for The Maples, any member in this House getting up and giving a strongly worded speech is not intimidation. He has been in this House for a number of years, and I take great umbrage at that because I often have defended, I have defended members on all sides of this House in giving strongly held views, including the member for The Maples and the member for Inkster. But I do not think the member for Inkster intimidated or attempted to intimidate anybody in this House, and I would say that I would expect the member for Inkster would not make that kind of accusation to the member for Crescentwood. A strongly worded statement indeed. He feels strongly about this; many of us do.

But to say that the member for Crescentwood was trying to intimidate the member for Inkster by speaking, I think, is going a little bit too far, in fact going a lot too far. Let us remember this is parliament. One of the things that defines the parliamentary system is the fact that we come in here, and, as the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) so eloquently put it a number of weeks ago, we fight with words at times; we never fight in terms of physical violence; we never intimidate people. That is one of the major developments of parliamentary tradition. You know, I am proud of that, and I say, as a member of this Legislature, to the member for Inkster, I know I get accused of this at times. I know yesterday the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was saying, well, I was speaking loudly. You know, what are we elected for? We are all elected members of this Legislature to speak out on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of our political parties, and when we speak out, we are not intimidating anyone.

I mean, I would hope no one would be intimidated by my coming down as the MLA for Thompson expressing my views in this House. I have been doing that ever since I was elected, and I know other members have done that as well. I just say to the member for Inkster, he may or may not have had a point of order. I think if he had raised the issue on a matter of order, I think we would have dealt with that, and I think that was reasonable. At times I respect the fact that when we make matters of privilege, we are trying to develop a prima facie case and, indeed, the contempt of Parliament.

But there was no intimidation from the member for Crescentwood. Strongly worded views are an integral part of this institution. In fact, if you read Beauchesne, it is reflected in Beauchesne itself, which is a codification of hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition. I say it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I say this directly to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), because I have on numerous occasions spoken out in this House on behalf of him and other members of this Legislature. I feel a special sort of privilege: I have been one of the few people in this House, some of us on our side have had that–I do not know if you call it a privilege, but having been in government and in third party in opposition, I understand at times what the member for Inkster and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) go through in terms of being a third party, perhaps not quite the degree.

I defend the right of the member for Inkster to speak out in this Legislature. I know he is not trying to intimidate anybody. I also defend the right of the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) to get up and respond in debate on a grievance, his only opportunity this session to be able to do so. For the member for Inkster to suggest that there was any intimidation there, I would hope–and we can deal with the matter of privilege, I think, on its merits–he would reconsider using terms like that for a member in this House, standing in his place, speaking in debate. That is not intimidation. That is what we are elected to do. I will defend the right of the member for Inkster to speak on this matter of grievance, and I defend the right of the member for Crescentwood to do the same thing.

* (1550)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Questions of privilege are, of course, very important matters. I find the comments of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), some irony in them, given his attempt at defending the motion of privilege, I think the very ill-conceived motion of privilege of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) earlier this afternoon, but I guess one has to always argue as a House leader in opposition on a variety of positions whether they have merit or not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether or not there is a question of intimidation is something that will have to be decided by yourself in ruling on this particular matter, but in reference to Beauchesne that the member for Inkster made with respect to the comments by the member for Crescentwood about imputing bad motives, motives different from those acknowledged by the member, from what I recall of the member for Crescentwood, he certainly would be in breach of that statement because what we heard him say is somehow that members of this House, particularly the member for Inkster, was doing some terrible thing by raising the report that was made public today and asking very obvious questions about the conduct of Mr. O'Leary, about the conduct of the Seven Oaks school district.

I can appreciate the sensitivity of the member for Crescentwood, given that all of the players involved in this are members of the New Democratic Party, advisers to the New Democratic Party, campaign chairs to the New Democratic Party. What I found most interesting in the member for Crescentwood's comments is when–yes, he acknowledged that Mr. O'Leary did breach, and, yes, he admitted to breaching those rules. What was most interesting is the other question that comes out of this whole incident is why then was the teacher who drew the public's attention to this issue demoted in that manner by the same parties whose actions are questionable or may, in fact, have been making efforts to cover up the actions of Mr. O'Leary. That is probably the most serious part of this whole situation: an individual who had brought to the public's attention a clear breach of the protocols and then to be moved to a position as a typing teacher when he was a math teacher. The reason I raised this–

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, earlier in this sitting, the government House leader actually rose on a point of order when I was speaking on a matter of privilege and suggested I was being somewhat out of order. I do recall the Speaker at the time said it was a legitimate point of order, and having been on the receiving end, I do think the government House leader is also skating into that territory. So I am wondering if he might ask him to deal with the matter of privilege and not the debate that was taking place on the grievance.

I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable House leader, on the same point of order?

Mr. Praznik: Yes. I think if you would allow me a few moments to continue. The reason I am referring to this whole incident is because it comes back to the matter raised by the member for Inkster, where he indicates–and his concern, part of it, was that bad motives or motives different from those being acknowledged are being made by the member in his grievance. What I am trying to point out is that the issue–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Let me deal with the point of order. I think I have enough information on it.

The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did have a point of order. I was about to ask the minister if he was going to be referring to the matter of privilege before. So if the honourable minister could now refer to the reasons the matter of privilege is before the House.

The honourable minister, to continue.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we heard the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) say in this Chamber was to really attack the motivation of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in asking logical and reasonable questions about a matter of great public concern.

All of the issues that are part of that report were subject to the investigation, including what happened to the teacher who brought this matter to attention and appears to the public to have been punished by the New Democrats, from Mr. O'Leary to Mr. Wiens and all those who run the Seven Oaks School Division.

Those are legitimate points and questions that the member for Inkster raised in his grievance, and to have the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) somehow attack his motivation for bringing forward very legitimate questions that are unresolved I believe supports the concerns raised by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in his matter of privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

What is most interesting about this is there are many unanswered questions. The member for Crescentwood has firmly put on the record today that Mr. O'Leary did breach the protocol and somehow that that is okay, and, secondly, that the punishment of the whistle blower is also okay too, and questioning the motivation of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to raise this matter that is of concern to I think all people out there who want to see fairness in the way people are treated within school divisions, who want to ensure that provincial exams and security is proper and who want to make sure that those who have the responsibility for ensuring that security are not making a mockery of that security, to question that motivation is not appropriate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I just wanted to speak to the prima facie case for the matter of privilege very succinctly. It will not be complicated, but the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talked about how speaking strongly is not intimidation, and I agree, but we have rules how you shall speak. You shall not call someone a liar; you shall not question their motives; and doing that is a form of intimidation.

So I believe he has established a prima facie case about a matter that was brought to him by his constituent that he felt compelled–and, believe me, we have had many discussion about this matter because many of the parties involved I am close personal friends with or have relations with them, so this has been a very important issue on which there has been much discussion, and his motivation is to serve his constituents and his role here.

I believe by questioning his motives, it is a form of intimidation, and if it is allowed to occur here, it will occur again and affect all members and affect how this Chamber operates. So I think he has established a prima facie case.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think you have had a lot of advice, first of all I do want to make sure that the record is clear. The liars that I was referring to were the people referred to by Mr. Justice Monnin in his report. I did not at any time during my remarks suggest the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was a liar.

I think it is quite possible that I may have breached the rules in relation to the question of motivation. If there is a point of order in that regard, then I think that is what should be under debate, but the member for Inkster is not a person who is easily intimidated, and I do not think he is intimidated now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nor do I think he has made a case of privilege. At best, he has made a case of a breach of our rules.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable members. The honourable member for Inkster has already spoken to the matter.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, just given the remarks from the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and some dialogue that has happened since my originally standing, I am prepared to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This will conclude the matter of privilege then.