Yesterday, the Member for Thebacha, Ms. Jeannie Marie-Jewell, rose on a point of order, seeking clarification from the Speaker as to whether Members had the right to ask questions of a Minister which might impinge on the issue of Cabinet secrecy. As Members, including Ministers, are referring, with increasing frequency, to issues involving Cabinet documents, and this area of questioning is somewhat complex, I appreciate the desire of Members to gain a better understanding of the rules and procedures governing this area of parliamentary practice.

First, I would like to place the honourable Member's request for a ruling in context, with the debate in the House. On page 839 of unedited Hansard, the honourable Member for Iqaluit stated that he "understood that the Minister presented a submission to Cabinet for improving the wages of alcohol and drug workers." I wish to make it clear that I did not rule this question out of order. I did, however, caution Members to be careful when they are referring to matters that are not within the knowledge of all Members of this House. I stated, and I quote, "If the Member has knowledge that is the knowledge of this House about this particular event, then Mr. Patterson can pose his question." Citing documents not within the possession of the House, poses problems for the chair and for all Members. It is a long-standing parliamentary principle that, when documents are the subject of a debate, those documents should be before the House for all Members to review. I quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, citation 495(2), which states, "It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest."

The reason for laying documents before the House is clear -- it is to the benefit of all Members, and improves the quality of debate of this Legislature -- if all Members are in the possession of documents referred to in the House and are aware of the facts contained therein. In my brief comments, I was just reminding Members of this principle. At the time that the honourable Member for Iqaluit made his comments respecting the Cabinet submission, I had no knowledge of whether the facts and documentation cited by the Member were within the knowledge of all Members of this Legislature.

With respect to the issue of whether a Member can ask a question involving a matter of Cabinet secrecy, this Legislature is governed by our rules and procedures and by the body of law developed on parliamentary privilege. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, citation 26(1), states, "A question of order concerns the interpretation to be put upon the rules of procedure and is a matter for the Speaker or, in a committee, for the chairman to determine." Questions pertaining to issues involving Cabinet deliberations can be asked; they are not prohibited by our rules.

Nor is Cabinet secrecy, or the breach of Cabinet secrecy, a matter which invokes a claim to the parliamentary privilege. Beauchesne's, citation 31(8), states, "There is no link between the convention of Cabinet secrecy and the law of privilege."

Cabinet secrecy has long been a political convention in Canada. The essence of effective government is the ability to fully and frankly debate political issues before developing a consensus opinion of the government. Without Cabinet secrecy, the Executive simply could not continue to govern with any degree of solidarity or effectiveness. Cabinet secrecy is only a political convention and is not a rule of this Legislature, nor does it attract the protection of the law of parliamentary privilege. I again cite Beauchesne's, citation 31(6), which states, "Cabinet solidarity is a question of personal ethics and may be debated in the House, but cannot be made the foundation for a question of privilege." Accordingly, any Member may ask a question of a Minister, eliciting information on Cabinet deliberations. These types of questions will not be ruled out of order, as they contravene no rules or privileges of our Legislature. It will be the responsibility of the Minister to whom the question is asked, as to whether they invoke Cabinet secrecy and refuse to answer the question.

For the assistance of Members, I direct their attention to Beauchesne's, citation 416(1), which states, "A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of order..."

While the Member for Thebacha does not have a point of order, her request for a ruling in this area was useful to the chair and, I hope, to all Members of the House.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Lewis.