Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. I am ruling on a matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) on December 2, 1997. I thank honourable members for their advice to the Chair on this matter.
The motion put forward by the honourable member for Inkster is that the Speaker convene an intersessional meeting of House leaders and a representative of the independent MLAs to resolve the issues facing the Speaker's Chair. I believe the key point in the case put forward by the honourable member in his matter of privilege is that the business of the House was being improperly interfered with or obstructed because of matters being raised by members of the official opposition and the ensuing ringing of division bells.
As Beauchesne sets out, when considering a matter of privilege a Speaker has to consider two principles: one, was the matter raised at the earliest opportunity; and, two, is there a prima facie case for a matter of privilege.
Respecting the principle of timeliness, I would say that yes, the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity because the honourable member for Inkster rose on this matter of privilege immediately following a division on a challenge to a Speaker's ruling.
* (1420)
With respect to whether a prima facie case exists, I would rule that no, it does not. By way of precedent, I refer to rulings of June 2, 1995, and May 23, 1996, and in particular to references from the Canadian authority, Joseph Maingot, in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada: "While it will be seen that the Member enjoys all the immunity necessary to perform his parliamentary work this privilege or right . . . is nevertheless subject to the practices and procedures of the House. Thus, allegations of breach of privilege by a Member . . . which amount to complaint about procedures and practices in the House are by their very nature matters of order."
Maingot also states that questions of order are not generally considered to be matters of privilege. While our Rule 14 indicates that persistent and willful obstruction of the House could lead to a Member being named by the Speaker, I do not believe the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has made a case that the official opposition in raising a matter of privilege on December 1 and in challenging a ruling of the Speaker on December 2 have obstructed the business of the House. Speaker Walding in February 1984 pointed out in a ruling that "since our Rules and precedents have not been disobeyed, it is difficult to argue a matter of privilege . . . the use of the rules cannot be considered a matter of privilege."
I must therefore rule that the honourable member for Inkster has not established a prima facie case and his motion is not in order.