Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.

On October 23 I took under advisement a matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) about the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger). In raising the matter of privilege, the member for Crescentwood alleged that the minister had deliberately misled the House by failing to be truthful in answering a matter raised in this House, and that by doing so the minister had demonstrated contempt of the House. The member for Crescentwood also claimed that the minister had violated an act of the Legislature.

* (1420)

I thank honourable members for their contributions as to whether or not a prima facie case of privilege was made.

There are three conditions to be met in order for a Speaker to find that there is prima facie evidence of a matter of privilege. First, was the matter raised by the honourable member for Crescentwood at the earliest opportunity? I am satisfied that the matter of privilege indeed was raised at the earliest opportunity. The member required the time to receive and review the Hansards of October 21 and 22 before raising the matter.

The second condition for a matter to proceed is that the member raising a matter of privilege must provide the House with a reparation or remedy. The member for Crescentwood did propose a motion that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, so the second condition has been complied with.

The third condition to be met is that sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of the privileges of the House has occurred. I must find that the third condition has not been met. My reasons for doing so are as follows: Joseph Maingot, in the book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, states on page 205, that in order for a matter of privilege to exist, it must be clearly demonstrated that the member in question deliberately or intentionally misled the House. As Speaker Rocan ruled on June 19, 1991, the member raising the matter must support his or her charge with proof of intent. In the matter raised on October 23, 1996, I do not believe that the member for Crescentwood has furnished proof that the minister deliberately set out to intentionally mislead the House.

Also, in raising the matter of privilege, the honourable member for Crescentwood alleged that the honourable Minister of Natural Resources would look the other way when the law was being broken in the taking and exporting of fish from Sisipuk Lake. The honourable minister has denied this.

I must bring to the attention of the House that Beauchesne Citation 31(9) indicates that a claim of a failure to comply with the law is a matter for the courts, not a Speaker to decide. Additionally, Maingot, on page 191, states that " . . . allegations of misjudgement or mismanagement or maladministration on the part of a Minister in the performance of his ministerial duties do not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege."

Also, the Minister of Natural Resources on October 23 clearly stated, he indicated at meetings held in his office that the law could not be violated. Beauchesne Citation 494 states that statements by members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted.

Therefore, I must rule that the honourable member for Crescentwood has failed to establish a prima facie case of privilege and must rule his motion out of order.