This is page numbers 1113 - 1145 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 2nd Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was aboriginal.

Members Present

Hon. Titus Allooloo, Mr. Antoine, Mr. Arngna'naaq, Hon. James Arvaluk, Hon. Michael Ballantyne, Mr. Bernhardt, Hon. Nellie Cournoyea, Mr. Dent, Mr. Gargan, Hon. Stephen Kakfwi, Mr. Koe, Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, Ms. Mike, Hon. Don Morin, Mr. Nerysoo, Mr. Ningark, Hon. Dennis Patterson, Hon. John Pollard, Mr. Pudlat, Mr. Pudluk, Hon. Tony Whitford, Mr. Zoe

---Prayer

Speaker's Ruling On Sub judice

Item 1: Prayer
Item 1: Prayer

Page 1113

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Good afternoon. Before we proceed today, I am going to give my decision on the point of privilege made by Mrs. Marie-Jewell on Thursday, September 24, 1992. Where she asked the Minister of Health, the Honourable Dennis Patterson, a question relating to the process surrounding an inquiry, established pursuant to the Medical Profession Act. A board of inquiry has been duly constituted pursuant to the Act, however, the inquiry is in its early stages, and to the Chair's knowledge, no evidence has yet been given in the inquiry. As the issue of sub judice has been raised with increasing frequency in this Assembly, I, therefore, allowed debate on this issue, and advised Members that I would take some time to consider their comments, and review our rules and various parliamentary authorities, before rendering my ruling.

Rule 35(g) provides that a Member will be called to order if the Member refers to any matter that is before any quasi-judicial administrative, or investigative, body constituted by the Assembly, by or under the authority of an Act of the Assembly, or where any such person may be prejudiced in such a matter by the reference. This rule is a "codification" of the long-standing parliamentary convention prohibiting Members from commenting on matters before judicial bodies.

The purpose of the sub judice convention is twofold: to protect the interested parties from prejudice, and to maintain a separation and mutual respect between the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The sub judice convention is straightforward as it applies to criminal matters. Parliamentary precedents are consistent in barring any reference to criminal matters pending before a court. Comments by Members of criminal matters being considered by a court may result in prejudice to the accused, and the development of a public perception that the Legislature is attempting to influence the judiciary. The independence of the judicial system, and the rights of the accused, are simply too important to allow this to happen.

The rule as it applies to civil matters, particularly those pending before a quasi-judicial tribunal, is less clear and, hence, the sub judice convention becomes more difficult to apply. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, citation 507(1), notes "that no settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others". Thus, the application of this ill-defined convention, as it is applied to civil matters, is left to the relevant Speaker, and considerable discretion exists in determining when, and under what circumstances, a question will offend the convention.

The discretion allowed the Speaker is necessary, for it is not possible to devise a rule which would have a general and exact application to every factual scenario that Members may pose.

While it is not possible to define exactly when sub judice is applicable, discretion should not be exercised in a vacuum, and guidelines should be adopted which will govern the exercise of the Speaker's discretion. After reviewing the relevant authorities and principles, I feel that the following principles are applicable when determining whether a question violates Rule 35(g), and the general sub judice convention:

1. The freedom of speech accorded to Members in this House is vital to the Member's ability to perform their duties, and adequately represent the needs and interest of their constituents. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democratic system. The application of the sub judice rule is a fetter on a Member's freedom of speech and, hence, the convention should be restrictively interpreted. The Speaker should interfere with that freedom of speech only in exceptional cases where it is clear that to do could be harmful to specific individuals. (Beauchesne's 511)

2. The rights of litigants to a fair trial, free from the possibility of prejudice occasioned by a public debate on the very issues before the trial judge, must also be protected. Generally, Speaker comments which seek to influence parties, witnesses, or decision-makers, will be inappropriate. In these circumstances, a Member's freedom of speech must give way to the importance of preserving the independence of the decision making process. It is not enough for justice to be done, it must also be seen to be done.

3. Questions, or debate, relating to the content of a matter before a separate decision making party will, generally speaking, be inappropriate, and will be disallowed. This would include, for example, questions relating to evidence given at an inquiry, or questions designed to comment on, or influence, the very matter before a decision maker. Questions relating to procedure, or process, particularly at the pre-hearing stage, will, generally speaking, be allowed, given that they do not seek to substitute this Legislature's opinions for that of the outside tribunal.

4. While the Chair has the ultimate responsibility of determining when a matter is sub judice, all Members should share in the responsibility of protecting the independence of decision making bodies, established under Acts of this Legislature.

A Member who feels that there could be a risk of causing prejudice in referring to a particular case, or inquiry, should refrain from raising the matter.

5. Where a real doubt exists in the mind of the Chair, as to whether a question would prejudice the litigants, or the independence, of the decision making process, the Chair should exercise its discretion in favour of allowing debate on the issue, and against the application of the sub judice convention.

In applying the above principles to the question asked by the Member for Thebacha, I have not been persuaded that prejudice would result, or be seen to result, if the Member is permitted to ask a question concerning the process of establishing the inquiry. The process of giving evidence is not yet under way. Further, the Member's question concerns a procedural, process oriented issue, and is not related to the actual subject matter of the inquiry. Accordingly, should the Member wish, I will permit her to raise her question as posed on Thursday, September 24, 1992.

As indicated, this a lengthy ruling, but I felt that Members should be aware of the principles that the Chair will apply in debate when deciding on the use of the sub judice convention. I would also hope that Members would exercise their responsibility when asking questions, and to also be guided by these principles.

Thank you.

Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Whitford.

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform the House, that later today, I, along with the Member for North Slave, Mr. Zoe will be flying to Lac La Martre to celebrate, with the community, the opening of its new airport.

The Department of Transportation was able to build the airport through a fifty-fifty cost sharing agreement, with Transport Canada, for the construction of seven new community airports in the Northwest Territories. The cost sharing construction agreement was negotiated as part and parcel of the Arctic airports transfer agreement in 1990.

The new airport brings several benefits to the community of Lac La Martre. The old airport was located inside the community, and was restricting the community's growth. The land taken up by the old airport is now available for community expansion.

The new airport is also better for the aircraft companies, and pilots, who serve Lac La Martre. With a length of 3,000 feet, the new runway gives the pilots an extra 800 feet of safety margin for their take-offs and landings. The new runway is also on a better alignment which should eliminate the problem the old airstrip had with cross-winds.

As the Minister of Transportation, I am especially proud of the way the department carefully managed the project, so that the people of Lac La Martre could make the most of the employment opportunities the project offered. As part of the opening ceremonies today, fifteen residents will receive the Arctic College Heavy Equipment Diplomas that they earned while on the job.

All in all, I am proud to say that the opening of the Lac La Martre airport later today will be a big success for everyone involved. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Item 2, Ministers' statements. Item 3, Members' statements.

Board Of Inquiry On Fort Smith Health Centre
Item 3: Members' Statements

Page 1114

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, before giving my Member's statement, I want to take the time to thank you for your ruling on the matter of privilege, I brought before this House last Thursday. I believe that your direction, Mr. Speaker, on this will be useful for all honourable Members, in this House, when dealing with sub judice convention.

I would like to make a few comments today, however, because I am still concerned about the process used by the Minister of Health with respect to a Board of Inquiry, established under the Medical Profession Act, to deal with certain matters at the Fort Smith Health Centre. The Minister of Health, on September 9, was asked about the development of standards for a board of inquiry, of a report prepared by two doctors from Saskatchewan.

The Minister responded, and I refer to page 3075 of our unedited transcripts, of that particular date, regarding the board of inquiry, and I quote the Minister's response: "The board of inquiry is an independent procedure which I would describe as a peer review, the same way that doctors, pharmacists, and other professionals discipline themselves."

It is not something that is geared by the government, the Minister, or the department? Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister can continue to take this position when the department's own lawyer is acting for the one who is issuing notices of summons, and acting for the board of inquiry. Who is giving her the instructions to do this? Clearly, it must be someone within the Department of Health, or the Department of Justice. I state that because, that is where the employee works.

Honourable Members should be as concerned as I am with this Minister, who may not be keeping an arms length distance from this, supposedly, independent process. Honourable Members should be concerned that the Department of Health may be attempting to steer this process in the same way it attempts to run health and hospital boards across the territories, and overriding the wishes of our communities and regions in favour of its headquarters's perspectives.

I do intend to further my questioning on this important issue today because, as you had said...

Board Of Inquiry On Fort Smith Health Centre
Item 3: Members' Statements

Page 1114

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mrs. Marie-Jewell, your allotted time has elapsed.

Board Of Inquiry On Fort Smith Health Centre
Item 3: Members' Statements

Page 1114

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

I seek unanimous consent to continue.

Board Of Inquiry On Fort Smith Health Centre
Item 3: Members' Statements

Page 1114

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent. Are there any nays? There are no nays, please continue Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Board Of Inquiry On Fort Smith Health Centre
Item 3: Members' Statements

Page 1114

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, I will continue to pursue this line of questioning today. As you had

stated, justice must not only be done, but it must also seem to be done. Thank you.

Board Of Inquiry On Fort Smith Health Centre
Item 3: Members' Statements

Page 1115

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Item 3, Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

Kenoayoak Pudlat Baffin South

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. As we all know, everything is going up in price, but I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation, in regards to airlines, I do not know if the airfares are going up in the west, but the airfares in the eastern Arctic are increasing. I am wondering if the Minister has ever been notified of the proposed increases in airfares, and if he knows anything about these proposed increases?

For those of us that have to travel back and forth on airlines in the eastern arctic, it has a significant impact on us. Airfare increases in the eastern Arctic are increasing every year practically. I am wondering if the Minister of Transportation has been notified of these proposed increases? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mr. Whitford.

Return To Question O862-12(2): Reason For Increased Airfares In The Eastern Arctic
Question O862-12(2): Reason For Increased Airfares In The Eastern Arctic
Item 5: Oral Questions

Page 1115

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I have not been advised that there are airfare increases in the Member's region. I have not got any word from anyone.

Return To Question O862-12(2): Reason For Increased Airfares In The Eastern Arctic
Question O862-12(2): Reason For Increased Airfares In The Eastern Arctic
Item 5: Oral Questions

Page 1115

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Dent.

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Personnel. Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware of my concerns regarding the lack of consultation between his department, and the moving industry, about the development of a tariff for the movement of G.N.W.T. employees' goods. On September 17, 1992, the Minister advised the House that he was committed to making good use of the delay, in the institution of the tariff, making sure that officials will now speak to the people affected.

My question is, will the Minister advise the House as to what progress his department has now made, in conducting negotiations with moving industry representatives, towards a solution to this issue?

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mr. Kakfwi.

Stephen Kakfwi

Stephen Kakfwi Sahtu

Mr. Speaker, without notice of the question, I have no way to prepare a statement advising the House on progress today. I have to take it as notice. Thank you.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Question has been taken as notice. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

Kenoayoak Pudlat Baffin South

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, if I could only go back to my oral question? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be asking another question to the Minister of Transportation. I wish to have further clarification on his response. I think that we, as individuals, have to be informed as soon as possible as to when there are going to be increases proposed, particularly on the airlines, and we all know that prices are forever going up in the north.

We had just heard that the increase will be about $2.00 or more on airfares in the eastern Arctic. They just recently had increases on airfares. We all know that unemployment is extremely high in the north, and this is going to have a very big impact on individuals in the communities. I am asking if the Minister could be more informative on the proposed increases on airfares. I do not know what kind of procedures they have. When airlines are going to be increasing their airfares, I wish to ask the Minister if he can inform us, as soon as possible, when he hears of these increases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

New question, Mr. Whitford.

Return To Question O864-12(2): Reason For Increase In Airfare In The Eastern Arctic
Question O864-12(2): Reason For Increased Airfares In The Eastern Arctic
Item 5: Oral Questions

Page 1115

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in my first reply I stated that I had not heard of any increases. I will endeavour to find out from the airline companies that fly here, if there are to be any increases, and get that information to the Member. It is not something that our department becomes involved in, setting of the prices for commercial air travel. What I will do, Mr. Speaker, is find out from First Air, I think that is the company that is into Lake Harbour and area, if indeed, there has been price increases, and get that information to the Member. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I will ask them if they would be so kind as to provide that to the communities, in advance. Thank you.

Return To Question O864-12(2): Reason For Increase In Airfare In The Eastern Arctic
Question O864-12(2): Reason For Increased Airfares In The Eastern Arctic
Item 5: Oral Questions

Page 1115

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Personnel. Mr. Speaker, some time this month, I cannot recall the exact date, we asked the Minister if he would give his department direction to meet with the moving companies. I would like to ask him, in regards to the tariff that the G.N.W.T. is wanting to impose on moving companies, if this direction had been relayed to his department to meet with the moving companies? Thank you.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mr. Kakfwi.