Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): A matter of privilege, Madam Speaker, is a very serious matter. Beauchesne's states that a matter of privilege is partly a question of fact and partly of law, the law of the contempt to Parliament on page 12 of the 6th Edition.

Essentially, several conditions must be satisfied for such a matter to be accepted by you as a bona fide matter of privilege. First, the matter must be raised at the first opportunity as noted by Beauchesne, Citation 117. The matter giving rise to my privilege question today arose yesterday and Monday but primarily yesterday; therefore I would respectfully contend that I have satisfied that condition.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, a privilege question must have had the effect of interfering with the opposition's and my ability to exercise my freedom, to ask and have truthful answers given to questions allowed by you. Again, to quote Beauchesne, the privileges of Parliament are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.

Beauchesne also states that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in the House. This is the first such question I have ever raised and the first in this fall sitting. Therefore, I must demonstrate to you that a minister has failed to be truthful in answering a matter raised in the House and thereby has deliberately misled this House and by so doing tended to bring this Parliament into contempt.

Madam Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday of this week I and my colleague from Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) have asked important questions concerning certain allegations made by Mr. Aitken, Mr. Bighetty, Mr. Gaudry and Mr. Sigurdson. These allegations included the facts that in two meetings with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and two meetings with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), discussions took place regarding the taking, transporting, processing and exporting of both fine and rough fish from Sisipuk Lake through the Spirit River fish company using the fish processing plant at St. Laurent, Manitoba, located in the Minister of Agriculture's riding.

Madam Speaker, in response to repeated questions from the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and from myself, the Minister of Natural Resources asserted that he had not broken any laws. In effect, he claimed that Allen Aitken, Pascall Bighetty and others were lying in their signed statements and letters in this regard.

But, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has a clear duty to enforce the acts for which he has responsibility. One of those acts is the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, Chapter F13. This is the federal act regulating the catching, processing, transporting and exporting of fish from a participating province, of which Manitoba is one.

Madam Speaker, all parties to this dispute agree on certain things. First, they agree that the catching and exporting of rough fish, that is fish species not enumerated in the schedule attached to this act, is regulated by special permits issued freely by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and that the Spirit River fish company had such permits.

The central issue is the taking, transporting, processing and exporting of the fine species, species such as perch, whitefish, pickerel or trout, which are enumerated in the act.

All parties in the dispute have agreed in this House that the request made by Mr. Aitken, Mr. Bighetty and others was to test the export market for rough and fine fish. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) acknowledges this in several of his responses to questions in the House both to the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and to myself. For example, you will find many of these readily, but I will quote one. He stated on Monday, "a request was made for allowing to export processed fish from the fish plant in the Interlake."

* (1335)

The specific matter of privilege stems from my questions on Monday and Tuesday in which I asked, and I quote from Hansard: "Will the minister acknowledge that the meetings took place, that both ministers suggested that they would look the other way when the law was being broken in regard to the taking and exporting of fish from Sisipuk Lake?" And on Tuesday I asked what was the substance of the discussions he had with the parties.

On Monday, the minister, after making some nasty personal allegations which do not bear repeating replied: "Madam Speaker, this member has invariably at various times brought accusations . . . that he can never substantiate, and I deny any of the allegations that he has put on the record here today."

In other words, he denied that the ministers would look the other way when the law was being broken. Yet, on Tuesday, the minister stated that he had indeed agreed to the taking, shipping and processing of fine and rough fish at St. Laurent, clearly knowing, by his own words, that the intent of the parties was to export the fish.

In agreeing to the catching, transporting and processing of fish to be exported, he has clearly broken much of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, Part 3, specifically Section 20(1) which I will quote: except in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in any licence which may be issued by the corporation, no person other than the corporation or an agent shall (a) export fish from Canada; (b) send, convey or carry fish from a participating province to another participating province; (c) in a participating province receive fish for conveyance or carriage to a destination outside the province; (d) sell or buy or agree to buy or sell fish situated in a participating province, et cetera.

Clearly the act regulates the intent to export. Clearly the minister knew that the intent of taking this fish was to export. Clearly, therefore, he agreed to an act which was illegal. The essence of the question of privilege then is that the minister knowingly gave permission to undertake acts, the intention of which was clearly known to him to be in violation of an act for which he has responsibility and which he is sworn to uphold.

In so doing, Madam Speaker, he has offended this House and misled this House since he denied repeatedly any wrongdoing on his part.

Therefore, I must move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): In view of the allegations that have been put on the record here today, I would just like to clarify the position, as I did over the last few days, exactly what transpired between the meetings in my office and the actions that took place after that.

I want to repeat again that I did meet with the four people in my office, together with my executive assistant, and at that time the discussion took place in terms of whether I would allow them to take and catch fish out of Lake Sisipuk and transport those fish to the processing plant in the Interlake. The first condition of that request, I said they would have to get permission from the Pukatawagan Band which basically has jurisdiction over the Lake Sisipuk fishing area.

It is my understanding that they never even received that permission, but that was one of the conditions laid down. Further to that, I indicated if they did catch fish out of Lake Sisipuk that they would be permitted to take those fish and move them down to the processing plant in the Interlake, and they could process them whichever way they wanted. However, I clearly indicated at that time, raising the question specifically, that they would not be allowed to export fish outside of the province because that is federal law, federal jurisdiction and they basically are the ones that are responsible for the administration of that. My people, my NROs, basically enforce that law at the customs because the customs people basically inform and make our people aware of what is going on and our people enforce the federal law on behalf of the federal government. Madam Speaker, that is what has transpired. There is nothing further to that.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, in regard to the matter of privilege, first of all I would point out that your role in this, to members of the Legislature, is essentially to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I do believe that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has satisfied the basic requirements in terms of raising this matter at the earliest time.

I also do believe it is a serious matter, and I believe it is important that we as members of the Legislature have the ability to deal with very serious concerns in this case in a way that will ensure complete and accurate information. I do believe that the member for Crescentwood has documented why we certainly believe that this matter should be sent to the privileges and elections committee. I want to stress that this goes beyond any disagreement over the facts. There are certain facts in this matter that are not in dispute, the meetings that have taken place and much of the discussion that has taken place, and what particularly concerns us on this side is the intent to export, which we believe was very clearly demonstrated and which does, we believe, violate existing laws.

* (1340)

I do not think there has been any indication yet in the House that clarifies this to any point beyond the fact that the individuals involved who made these accusations--and I want to stress again these are not individuals who have any partisan axe to grind with the government. In fact, at least one individual has had a very close association with the government in the past. It is not a question of New Democrats and Conservatives. It is a question of four meetings that took place. Obviously, we might question even perhaps if the connection of at least one individual had to the Conservative government might have explained the fact that four meetings were arranged over a very limited period of time. We know many Manitobans who cannot get any meetings with this government, but obviously these meetings took place. The very real concern here is we have sworn affidavits, we have documented accusations made by individuals who were at that meeting that point very clearly to the possibility, we believe, if based on the evidence, the fact that certain indications were given by the minister which violate legislation, and I think it would be in everybody's best interest to have this matter dealt with at the committee of privileges and elections.

I believe it would give the minister the opportunity to deal with the matter. I also believe we should do something that has not been done recently in Manitoba history, but certainly it is within the purview of the committee itself, and that is to call the other individuals. I believe this is a very, very serious matter. I believe the accusations are very serious and I think it is in everyone's best interest, including the minister and the government, to have this clarified. I want to suggest then, Madam Speaker, that when you rule on whether it is a prima facie case that you do in fact rule that it is a prima facie case, it goes far beyond any dispute over the facts, and I would also suggest that you put the matter to the House, as is your prerogative as Speaker, so that we can then take that opportunity to vote to send it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

I want to indicate to the minister who just spoke in this House, I think that is the best way for him to put out his side of what he feels happened. I also think it is the best way of bringing forward witnesses, the individuals who made the accusations and I believe it is in the best interests of the public of Manitoba, who I believe, on this and other matters in this session, have every right to question some of the things that are happening in this Legislature and have every right to question the conduct of ministers who have a distinct obligation, I believe, to be above and beyond all reproach, and I believe I would actually urge the minister and the government members to support sending this to committee because I think many Manitobans are asking questions about this government and about ministerial conduct on many issues this session, this being the most recent and one of the most serious. I think the way to resolve this is to get it into the Privileges and Elections committee and hear the facts.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a question of privilege has been raised on a very serious matter indeed, not one that should very often occur in a Legislature or Parliament.

The fact of the matter is, though, that we have primarily a dispute over the facts. We have, on the one hand, certain allegations made by certain individuals that something was said and the response to which was given by the minister here in the House that those allegations were not true. So we have no further evidence to suggest that one side or the other is not telling the truth.

* (1345)

But, Madam Speaker, all members here in this House are honourable members, and the answers given by honourable members here in the House are accepted as such. We have, in fact, one group of individuals which alleges one thing and the minister is saying something quite different. So what we have primarily is a dispute over the facts, and there is no prima facie case for a question of privilege here as raised by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).

Madam Speaker: I thank all honourable members for their contribution, and I will take this matter under advisement and report back to the House.