Speaker’s Rulings
Madam Speaker: I have three rulings for the House.
Order, please. On November 1, 1995, the honourable member for Thompson, the opposition House leader, raised a matter of privilege and moved: THAT the question of freedom of speech of members of this House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The central point in this matter of privilege, I believe, is the question “Is restriction on language used by members an infringement of a member’s privilege of freedom of speech?”
What then does constitute freedom of speech? In the work The Procedure of the House of Commons by Josef Redlich, the author states on pages 44 and 45 that “Speech is the element which gives life and power of action to a parliamentary body as air does to the natural body; pursuing the metaphor, we may say that in the world of parliament, speech is the elastic, free, all-pervading and mobile element in its composition. But clearly this element, so free in itself, must be subject to some form of regulation.” “There must be rules and standards before a succession of speeches becomes Debate, the characteristic form in which speaking appears in parliamentary proceedings.” “There are two features which give to debate in Parliament its unique legal nature: first, its being under the protection of the great constitutional principle of unrestricted freedom of speech, and secondly its being subjected by parliamentary law to definite rules and standards indicating how to apply the principle of freedom and partially limiting its operation.” “There seems to be a contradiction in terms between the principle of unrestrained liberty of speech and a strict adherence to rules of speech and debate; but it is easily resolved by tracing the historical origin of freedom of speech in the oldest of parliamentary bodies, the House of Commons.”
“Freedom of speech is, in England (and throughout the Commonwealth), one of the original and fundamental privileges of the members of both Houses of Parliament, but it is a privilege intended in the first instance as a protection against attacks from without.” “Freedom of speech, looked at from the point of view of the House as a whole, does not mean boundless license of speech, but equal freedom to all in the House, and equal latitude in the application of all rules as to speech to all members.”
Commenting on Article 9 of the 1689 British Bill of Rights which reads “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”, Redlich observes. “The legal proposition, therefore, was undoubtedly laid down as a measure of protection, as one of the conditions necessary to the existence of Parliament in its conflict with the Crown and the subservient courts of law. The statement in the Bill of Rights shows the limits within which the principle is to be applied; the claim made is not for absolute freedom of speech; speech is only to be independent of every authority except the private jurisdiction of Parliament over its own members. The autonomous jurisdiction of Parliament is the reverse side of the shield which protects the principle of freedom of speech, in the technical sense of the word.” The struggle for freedom of speech was waged to emancipate the action of Parliament from all influence of Crown, courts of law and Government; it was never a fight for unbridled oratory, for freedom to each member to say exactly what he (or she) pleased. From the earliest days there was always strict domestic discipline in the House and strict rules as to speaking were always enforced. The House could point to its autonomous regulation of the conduct and speech of its members, and to its enforcement of its rules; its power of so doing enabled it to claim and to win for its members the right of exemption from all responsibility at common law for what they said in its debates. Thus, theoretically speaking, the principle of parliamentary freedom of speech is far from being a claim of irresponsibility for members; it asserts a responsibility exclusively to the House where a member sits, and implies that this responsibility is really brought home by the House which is charged with enforcing it.”
These principles are echoed by J.A.G. Griffith and Michael Ryle in the work Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures at page 88 where they state “Although the original challenge to freedom of speech in the House came from the Crown, the terms of Article 9 not only protect members from action by the Crown but also prohibit action of any kind, and by any person outside the House, against members for what they may say or do in Parliament.” “The main benefit of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, as far as individual members are concerned, is to enable them to speak freely in the House or in committee without fear of actions for defamation. Although Article 9 prevents attempts by outside bodies or the courts to limit freedom of speech in Parliament, it does not mean that members can say whatever they like at all times, because the House itself, and the Speaker on behalf of the House, can restrict the content of speech in debate and other proceedings.”
The Supreme Court of Canada in 1981 held that Article 9 of the British Bill of Rights of 1689 is undoubtedly in force as part of the law of Canada.
Maingot on page 31 also speaks of the scope of freedom of speech when he states “Freedom of speech cannot be a true freedom to a member if he is not able to speak free of all constraints save those imposed by the legislature itself. Erskine May in the Twenty-First Edition of Parliamentary Practice on page 84 indicates again the limitation on freedom of speech by stating “Subject to the rules of order in debate, a member may state whatever he (or she) thinks fit in debate . . . ( and) . . . he or she is protected by privilege from any action for libel.” At the same time May stresses “the authority of the House is preserved to restrain members.” Sir John George Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice of the Dominion of Canada (Fourth Edition) on page 48 in writing about freedom of speech states “Yet while a member may not be subject to penalty out of parliament, he is liable to censure and punishment by the house itself if he transgress the rules of the house.”
The 1993 Canadian case of Donahoe versus the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pointed out that underlying the doctrine of parliamentary privilege is the justification that privileges are necessary for the conduct of the Legislature’s business and that, to be effective, it must enjoy a certain autonomy from control by the Crown and the courts.
What I draw from all of this is that freedom of speech is the protection of members to say what they wish in the House without interference from outside bodies or agencies or fear of repercussions from outside agencies, but it does not guarantee members the right to say absolutely anything they want in the House. The House, through the Speaker, can impose limits or rules. A Speaker should not be absolutely interventionist, but in those rare cases where language impinges on the dignity, decorum or the sensibilities of the House, the Speaker does have the authority to request the withdrawal of unparliamentary language.
I understand that members have strongly-held views and I certainly do not wish to prevent them from raising issues. However, I request that language be carefully chosen.
To conclude, in my judgment, the honourable member for Thompson has not established a prima facie case on his matter of privilege.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please rise.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Helwer, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
.
Nays
Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 32, Nays 21.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
* (1500)
* * *
Madam Speaker: On December 11, 1995, during Question Period, the opposition House leader raised a point of order about language used by the Premier. I took the matter under advisement in order to review Hansard and in particular to look at the context in which the words complained of were used.
Having now had the opportunity to peruse Hansard, I am ruling that indeed the opposition House leader did have a point of order. The words in question were “I implore the member for Crescentwood, if he is a man of principle, if he is a man who has any integrity whatsoever . . . ”
I note that in June of 1989, Speaker Rocan requested the withdrawal of a similar kind of phrase. Also, Beauchesne Citation 491 tells us that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. As I and earlier Manitoba Speakers have reminded the House on previous occasions, we are all honourable members and we should refer to each other and treat each other in a respectful fashion.
Therefore, I now call on the First Minister to unconditionally withdraw the words he used in reference to the honourable member for Crescentwood on December 11.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am happy to withdraw those comments.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister.
* * *
Madam Speaker: During Question Period on December 14, 1995, the Leader of the official opposition raised a point of order about language used by the Premier and said that the comments imputed unworthy motives to members of the opposition. I took the matter under advisement to review Hansard.
The words in question used by the First Minister were “he is not interested in the truth, he is not interested in facts, he is only interested in innuendo.”
In my opinion the Premier came very close but what he said does not constitute imputing unworthy motives. However, I would caution the honourable First Minister on his choice of words and request that all honourable members exercise caution and discretion in choosing their words when referring to other members of the Assembly.
MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS
RCS Greenhouses
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to put a brief statement on the record. I had the opportunity yesterday to visit a new industry in Arthur-Virden constituency known as RCS Greenhouses. I have been able to bring forward to the members some of the fruit of the vine which is being produced in that community.
A couple of points I would like to note, Madam Speaker, No. 1 is that we have two young people, Roy and Candice Consi and family, who as young entrepreneurs have taken very seriously the need to diversify and create employment in their community, and they have done so. I believe they have some 13 part-time and full-time employees in their operation in a small community.
As well, they are using a product off the gas plant system in southwestern Manitoba which is basically a waste product to be used as energy as well as the solar energy that is available to them to produce this fine product which I do not know where else you would find in Manitoba on Easter weekend, the first part of April, vine-ripened tomatoes which each of you I hope enjoy. Remember who produced them, a young couple in southwestern Manitoba who have put their commitment into making Manitoba a place to live and to produce. Thank you.
Parole Revocation--Dwayne Archie Johnston
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I too have a statement for the House.
On April 3, in Abbotsford, B.C., the National Parole Board revoked the day parole of Dwayne Archie Johnston, the convicted murderer of the late Helen Betty Osborne of the Norway House First Nation. Now Helen was murdered in 1971, but the four males who were involved were only charged in 1986, with Johnston being the only one convicted in 1987. The delays in bringing these men to justice and the results that the trial itself precipitated, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, now Volume 2 of the AJI was devoted to this issue and also the murder of J. J. Harper.
Last summer, Manitobans were shocked to learn that Johnston was granted day parole. As a result, a petition campaign was launched, gathering thousands of signatures. The Women’s Wellness Circle of Norway House worked with Helen Betty’s mother, Justine, who then launched the Walk for Justice that occurred in November. The Walk for Justice, 800 kilometres from Norway House to Winnipeg, gained support from communities throughout northern Manitoba and indeed across this province as it travelled to the Manitoba Legislature. The Walk for Justice helped make the plight of victims of crime a national issue.
In December, the chief of the Norway House First Nation, Ron Evans, Freda Albert of the Women’s Wellness Circle in Norway House and myself travelled to Abbotsford to discuss this matter with the parole board. As a result of this meeting, the parole board agreed to review the decision to grant day parole and agreed to hold a special hearing in Norway House.
The testimony released at the hearings was very important and relevant to the case. In deciding to revoke the day parole, the parole board overruled previous decisions of the same board due to questions raised at Norway House, the audit and in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report which had not been considered previously. The decision last week was not only a vindication for those concerned over the injustice of this particular case, it is also a significant victory for victims of crime throughout this country. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (1510)
Media Response to Budget
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today and address the members. I say that it is my pleasure because I am delighted with the response that our government has received on the budget tabled one week ago today. I enjoy reading the newspaper and had more than enough to read on Saturday in the Free Press. Fred Cleverley said, and I quote, “Accumulated debt is the greatest threat to Manitoba’s future prosperity, and the way to deal with this threat is by combining balanced budgets with an orderly reduction of that debt.”
Lest the NDP, according to our Saskatchewan neighbours under Roy Romanow as an example of the NDP also balancing their budget, Mr. Cleverley quickly reminded his readers that Mr. Romanow could not only balance his current budget because of the hefty tax increases his first year in office. So significant were those increases that an average family of four in Saskatchewan pays close to $700 more in taxes than the same family does in Manitoba.
Also in Saturday’s Free Press, Mr. John Douglas’s article which announced that the PC fiscal policy is paying off. He said that the Tories have lived up to their promise to get their fiscal house in order in spite of the shape it was left in by the previous NDP government.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the bottom line. Mr. Douglas and Mr. Cleverley focused on the budget per se, but another article boiled rhetoric into reality--jobs. The opening line, “The Manitoba economy has created 9,000 jobs in the first two months of 1996, posting the strongest growth of any province so far this year.” Aron Gampel is from the Bank of Nova Scotia and has just completed a trip through western Canada. He suggests that the economy in Manitoba is reacting to the government’s tax freeze and the balanced budget legislation. A lot of good news, but news that was generated because this government has chosen to build for the future instead of borrowing from it. Thank you.
RCS Greenhouses
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend and applaud the efforts of those individuals who were involved in providing us the tomatoes we have here today.
You know, it is interesting, here we are in Manitoba, a lot of snow outside, still somewhat cold and we have these wonderful Manitoba-grown tomatoes. What this demonstrates is that there is a lot of entrepreneurship out in rural Manitoba which we have to capitalize on by providing the tools that will assist rural Manitobans in coming up with good ideas and see a strong, vibrant, rural Manitoba. Hopefully, this is just a sample of things to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Pharmacare--Seniors
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I want to make a statement on Pharmacare and its impact on seniors.
About this time a year ago, the Filmon government was publicly campaigning on the election promise that there would be no cuts to health care, including Pharmacare. Breaking such an election promise, this Filmon government cut Pharmacare by about 34 percent. This is a $20-million cut to Manitoba’s Pharmacare program. Moreover, Pharmacare has now been changed by basing it on one’s income and without ceiling. As a result, approximately 100,000 Manitobans have lost Pharmacare coverage. The government is taking away benefits from the sick, the poor and the elderly. Since the government is boasting about a $120-million surplus in this budget, this cut to Pharmacare arises not out of budgetary necessity but of conscious, rational choice.
What this government promises to do, not to tax directly, it is doing it indirectly. This government promises--[interjection] and breaking its promise has led to a sleazy but blatant taxation on the sick, the poor, the seniors in this province. This Filmon government has betrayed the seniors by reducing the benefit level from 80 percent coverage to 70 percent coverage. Despite the Conservative’s promise in 1988 that they will tie and link Pharmacare deductible to the levels of inflation, the Pharmacare deductible had not risen to more than 52 percent.
Let me conclude, Madam Speaker, by asking the Filmon government, what do you mean that you beat the people to pieces and grind the faces of the poor? Why do you oppress the afflicted, the sick and the elderly?
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, pursuant to the new rules that were adopted last week, I would like to announce that the start date of the fall sitting will be September 16, 1996.