Last Wednesday, May 6, 1998 the Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) raised a point of privilege with respect to government advertising. The Member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), the Member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and the Member for Scarborough-Agincourt (Mr. Phillips) also contributed to the discussion on this matter.

I want to first address the issue of timeliness that was referred to by the Government House Leader. It is true that matters of privilege must be raised at the first available opportunity and members should always be cognizant of that fact. However, since the documents submitted to me are dated up to and including May 6, 1998 I have allowed the point to be made and considered.

I want to begin by again providing for all Honourable members a definition of privilege. Standing Order 21 states that "(p)rivileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom". Examples of privileges enjoyed by members are: freedom of speech; freedom from arrest in civil actions; exemption from jury duty; exemption from attendance as a witness and freedom from molestation.

In considering the advertising in question, my responsibility is to determine whether anything in it interferes with any proceeding of this legislature in such a manner as to intimidate or hinder or attempt by improper means to influence a member in the performance of his or her duties.

The member for St. Catharines quoted from an earlier ruling I gave on a similar matter. If he had continued on with that quote, however, he would have noted that I was expressing a personal view and that I went on to say that "I do not have the jurisdiction to examine the propriety of such campaigns unless they raise a matter of privilege or contempt". As Speaker Sauvé of the Canadian House of Commons indicated in her ruling of October 17, 1980 it is not the spending of money that is at issue, but rather whether or not such an expenditure has lead to any interference with the proceedings of Parliament.

It is not clear from what the member has said what head of privilege he feels is being breached, nevertheless I have reviewed the advertising in question. The ads do not in my opinion attempt by improper means to influence members in their parliamentary conduct. They do not impede freedom of speech in this House, nor in fact do they relate to a particular proceeding currently before us. Therefore, I can find no basis on which to find a prima facie case of privilege.

I further considered the advertising in question with a view to determining whether or not it amounted to contempt of this House. The ads do not in my opinion obstruct or impede the House or any Member or officer in the performance of duties or functions. They have not diminished the respect due to the House, nor do they reflect negatively on it. I cannot therefore find that a prima facie case of contempt has been made out.

I thank all members for their submissions on this matter.

Petition relating to Stopping the funding of abortions (Sessional Paper No. P-1) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. D. Duncan, Ms. S. Martel.

Petition relating to Stopping cuts to the Workers Health and Safety Centre (Sessional Paper No. P-4) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. D. Christopherson.

Petition relating to Enacting legislation to recognize freedom of health care workers (Sessional Paper No. P-7) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. F. Klees.

Petition relating to Stopping the restructuring project and providing funding to the developmentally disabled (Sessional Paper P-19) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mrs. S. Pupatello.

Petition relating to the Protection of our hunting heritage and the support of black bear hunting (Sessional Paper No. P-22) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. B. Grimmett.

Petition relating to the Opening of the new addition to the Port Dover Harbour Museum (Sessional Paper No. P-27) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. T. Barrett.

Petition relating to the Opposition of the establishment of a charity casino (Sessional Paper No. P-28) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. G. Morin.

Petition relating to Urging the federal government to repeal sections of Bill C-68 (Sessional Paper No. P-29) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. G. Ouellette.

Petition relating to Respecting the Nurses' Bill of Rights (Sessional Paper No. P-30) (Tabled May 11, 1998) Mr. R. Bartolucci.

Whereas the federal Liberal government in Ottawa is negotiating a Multilateral Agreement on Trade, ignoring the clear opposition of many provincial governments, municipalities and Canadians throughout the country; and

Whereas the MAI, negotiated for years in secret by the federal Liberals before activists forced it into the open, would provide a charter of freedoms for corporate investors with no clear benefits for the people of Canada; and

Whereas supporters of MAI, especially the trade minister and other members of the Liberal Cabinet in Ottawa, show no appreciation for the importance of strong environmental protection, high-quality health care and vibrant public education to the stable economy of our communities, our province and our country; and

Whereas the Ontario government has joined other provinces in expressing reservations about the draft MAI; and

Whereas growing opposition throughout Canada and the world has forced a delay in negotiations, but have not killed the proposed MAI;

Be it therefore resolved that this House urges the federal government to immediately demand a halt to the current MAI negotiations and call on the government to refuse to be part of any agreement that would enshrine the rights of corporate investors over the rights of the people of Canada and other countries around the world.