Mr. Chairperson: I have a ruling for Committee of Supply, Room 254.
On May 11, 1998, the Acting Chairperson took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
It concerned the response of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to a question asked by the member for Burrows. The member for Burrows had asked the minister a question regarding the timing of fire inspections at the Three Bears Day Care in Pine Falls, Manitoba. The honourable Minister of Family Services advised that she would not discuss the matter as criminal charges may be pending. When speaking to the point of order, the member for Burrows asked that, since the sub judice convention is not a rule, the Chairperson ask the minister to answer the question posed.
Beauchesne does contain several references to the sub judice convention and there have been several Speaker's rulings in Manitoba that have considered its application. Beauchesne Citation 505 states "members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play." Beauchesne Citation 506.(1) states that "the sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases."
* (1530)
I would draw to the attention of the committee that Speaker Rocan ruled in 1992 that while the sub judice convention is a voluntary restraint and is not a rule, it does apply if a matter involves a criminal issue. I would also draw to the attention of the committee that Speaker Walding ruled in 1983 that "Members will note that Citation 339, that is from Beauchesne, 4th Edition, makes it clear that the responsibility of whether questions are proper and are to be asked and answered lies principally with the members involved, the overriding principle in this case clearly being that the members should not make statements which may prejudice the case. The responsibility therefore is clearly with the honourable minister wishing to answer the question and with the minister to whom it is addressed."
Speaker Walding's ruling was cited in a subsequent ruling in 1993. Accordingly, I would rule that the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) does not have a point of order and that the minister may refuse to answer a question if she feels a response would prejudice this matter.