Thank you. Good afternoon. Before beginning orders of the day, I would like to provide my ruling on the point of privilege raised by the Honourable Richard Nerysoo on Friday, March 4, 1994. Members may recall, Mr. Nerysoo's point of privilege was twofold. He expressed concern with respect to a Member's statement made by the Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake, Mr. Charles Dent, on February 29, 1994. Secondly, he raised a concern with respect to the media's interpretation of Mr. Dent's statement.
By way of background, Mr. Dent had risen under the item, Members' statements, on Monday, February 28, indicating he was speaking on behalf of the Ordinary Members' Caucus, to voice the concerns of the OMC with respect to the absence of the Minister from the House during the budget process. Specifically, Mr. Dent had indicated a concern that Members had only been advised of the Minister's absence that morning and felt that this reflected and I quote, "a cavalier attitude" on the part of the Minister given that this department estimates were being considered by the House.
The Honourable Richard Nerysoo took exception to this statement and, in raising his point of privilege, stated on page 1218 of unedited Hansard, "The honourable Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake and other Members have suggested that somehow I'm guilty of not advising anyone, this House, my colleagues and other Members." Mr. Nerysoo went on to state, "They have found that I was not willing to be present without finding out all the facts about whether I had advised any of my colleagues and this House of my absence."
Upon his return from meetings in southern Canada, Mr. Nerysoo tabled on March 2, extracts from unedited Hansard of February 16, which indicated that he had in the course of a Minister's statement made that day, advised the House of his expected absence towards the end of February.
The basis of the honourable Member's point of privilege is that the statements made by Mr. Dent, and subsequently reported in the media, were a challenge to his personal honour, his character and his integrity.
Due to the significance of the issue raised, and the Member's obvious concern, Mr. Lewis, the Deputy Speaker, asked for debate so as to assist the chair in arriving at a decision. Mr. Dent responded to the point of privilege by stating and I quote from unedited Hansard on page 1220, "The Minister has been back in the House for two and one half days now, and this point was not raised when it was first possible." Mr. Dent further stated that his statement was made on behalf of the Ordinary Members' Caucus, so obviously ordinary Members were not aware that the Minister was going to be away. He felt that if there was a breakdown in communication that this issue was one that should be addressed in another forum and was not appropriately the topic of a point of privilege.
As Members know, rules 19(2) provides that "When a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately." Our rules also provide in rule 19(1) that, "A Member may always raise a question of privilege in the Assembly immediately after the words are uttered or the events occur that give rise to the question." Finally, for the point of privilege to be dealt with in a substantive fashion by this House, I must first determine whether (a) that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege and (b) that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.
On the first issue of whether a prima facie case of privilege exists, I have reflected on the role and purpose that parliamentary privilege plays within a democratic system. As Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, states at citation 24, "Parliamentary privilege is a sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of Parliament and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals...The privileges of Parliaments are those rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'."
I note that Mr. Nerysoo also offered this citation in his argument on the point of privilege.
I also direct the Members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, citation 69 which states, "The Speaker has reminded the House, 'It is very important to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job properly'."
After reviewing the portions of unedited Hansard dealing with Mr. Dent's Member's statement, Mr. Nerysoo's tabling of Hansard extracts in reply and Mr. Nerysoo's point of privilege, I find that Mr. Nerysoo does not have a point of privilege. What is clear from unedited Hansard is that Mr. Nerysoo and Mr. Dent both have differing recollections of whether the House was advised of Mr. Nerysoo's planned absence earlier than the Minister's statement made by the Government House Leader on February 28. Disagreement between Members may give rise to one Member taking offence at the statement of another, however, I do not believe, on these facts, that the statements made by Mr. Dent were serious or offensive so as to attract the broad protection of parliamentary privilege. In reaching my decision on the matter, I have relied on citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's which states, "A dispute arising between two Members as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege." I find that Mr. Dent's statements, and the obvious dispute here as to the facts, are not comparable to the factual situation cited in Beauchesne's citations 64 to 66 and citation 70 wherein prima facie breaches of privilege were found.
It is not the chair's responsibility to determine if Mr. Nerysoo or Mr. Dent's facts are correct unless there is an obvious breach of privilege. In reviewing this matter, it became evident that although not a breach of privilege, there were certain actions that need to be considered by all Members when making statements and following House procedures. I would suggest that there may be a need to tighten up the procedures for informing the House of the absences of Ministers and perhaps this could be addressed by the Government House Leader and the Cabinet. I am sure it would greatly assist the ordinary Members if the House could be advised, not on the day of the Minister's absence, but prior to the required absence of the particular Minister.