Good afternoon. Before we begin I would like to make a ruling.
Speaker's Ruling
On Thursday, February 18, 1993, the honourable Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, raised a point of privilege in response to remarks made by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi. To put the issue into context, some background may be of assistance. The Member for Thebacha was questioning the Minister on the enrolment of a particular inmate at the Territorial Women's Correctional Centre in an Arctic College program in Fort Smith. The Member was interested in pursuing the Department of Justice's rationale in supporting the enrolment of the inmate in that particular Arctic College program.
The Minister responded by stating in part, "I have always been reluctant to discuss individual people and cases" and "I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this questioning." The Member for Thebacha then raised a point of privilege stating, in essence, that the Minister's response was an infringement on her right of freedom of speech as a Member. Mr. Kakfwi also stated in the debate which followed the point of privilege that, in his view, "the questioning should stay focused, without naming particular individuals, on the policy of the government."
The issue of naming particular individuals when asking questions is one which has been raised with growing frequency. Accordingly, I asked for a debate on the question of privilege to provide all Members with an opportunity to express their views on the matter so that I could decide if there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, citation 75, refers to the privilege of freedom of speech as being both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of a Member. Erskine May, 5th edition, page 70, states that freedom of speech is a "privilege essential to every free council or Legislature." Speakers throughout Canada have consistently upheld the importance of protecting Members' freedom of speech. The Honourable John Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons, stated on May 21, 1987 in relation to a similar issue raised in the House, that freedom of speech was necessary because "Members of Parliament have to be able to speak freely without fear."
Clearly, the essence of democracy is that a Member must feel free to raise, in the Legislature, all issues of concerns to his or her constituents without fear of retaliation or action being taken by others. I think all Members would agree with these learned comments on the importance of this privilege.
Nonetheless, the freedom is not absolute. On some occasions, the right of a Member to speak freely on an issue must give way to other rights that the Legislature feels are worthy of protection.
One example of this is the sub judice convention, a Member may not speak on matters that are currently pending before the courts. Another example is the limitation with respect to unparliamentary language. The importance of protecting the dignity and respect of the parliamentary process is deemed to take priority over an individual member's right to free speech. These limitations on free speech are rare and, generally speaking, are well known and supported in parliamentary law.
On the facts of this particular debate, the Minister of Justice appears to be reluctant to answer the honourable Member's questions on the basis that her questions referred to an individual and as such were inappropriate.
I find that asking questions which name a particular individual is not contrary to parliamentary law or tradition in most cases.
However, I find that the honourable Member for Thebacha does not have a point of privilege. When asked a question in the House, a Minister may answer the question, take notice of the question or refuse to answer the question. There is nothing in parliamentary tradition or law which compels a Minister to respond to a question in a certain way.
Indeed, Beauchesne states, in citation 416, that "A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of order."
Beauchesne goes on to state, in the same citation, that "A refusal to answer a question cannot be raised as a point of privilege." Confusion sometimes occurs because two strong parliamentary traditions are in seeming conflict; the right of the Members to freedom of speech and the right of the Ministers to refuse to answer questions.
It must be made very clear that in most cases, a Member has the right to refer to an individual by name when asking a question of a Minister. A Minister has the right to refuse to answer a question, but it must be clear that in most cases, the decision to refuse to answer a question is not based on parliamentary law and tradition. However, in the complex dynamics of the Legislative Assembly, parliamentary rules and procedures cannot be the only road map to guide us. All exchanges between Members must be tempered by consideration, common sense and civility.
While questions naming specific individuals are, generally speaking, appropriate, I must caution all Members to take care when asking questions about specific individuals, the effect of which might harm the reputation of an individual outside of this Legislature who is unable to defend herself or himself.
Members have the privilege of free speech and immunity from criminal or civil prosecution for statements made inside this Legislature. In the interests of order, common sense and courtesy, I would ask all honourable Members to be extremely careful in these matters. Our Legislative Assembly has a long and proud history of respect, civility and cooperation which has been an example to the world. I ask Members to attempt, at all times, to show respect for each other, for the Assembly and for all northerners, no matter what their circumstances. Thank you.
Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Todd.