Good afternoon, Members. Before we proceed at this time, I would like to provide my ruling on the point of order raised on Tuesday, October 19, 2004, by the Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mrs. Groenewegen rose on a point of order during question period after a question and answer exchange between the Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya, and the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Michael McLeod. Mrs. Groenewegen's point is that the Minister, in responding to a question, was making reference to confidential proceedings in a standing committee and, in doing so, was inferring committee compliance with certain government initiatives. I quote the Member for Hay River South, page 1885 of the unedited Hansard: "I just wanted to raise a point of order that when Ministers share information with standing committees like GED or the Social Programs committee, that we are obliged to keep that information to ourselves and not to raise it in direct reference in the House in order to obtain information about future years' plans. I want to raise this because Minister McLeod was just referencing the plan and decisions of his department. He made reference to the fact that these were discussed with the GED and the GED approved them, and it makes it sound as if this was done at the initiative of a standing committee, as opposed to the department. We share information in the standing committees, but referring to decisions in direct reference to consultation of information that happened and communication that happened within the standing committee is inappropriate in the House."
In addressing this matter, I have reviewed unedited Hansard from October 19, 2004, in particular Mr. McLeod's response to Mr. Yakeleya on page 1883 and 1884, which gives rise to Mrs. Groenewegen's point of order. "Mr. Speaker, we have plans to invest $40 million into the Sahtu roads. We have met with the GED committee and they have advised us that some of our investments should be moved. This year we decided to move $1 million out of the Sahtu, we also are planning to move money out of the Ingraham Trail program into Highway No. 1."
In stating her point of order, I note that Mrs. Groenewegen did not identify which rule of the House the Minister infringed upon. In fact, strictly speaking, we do not have a particular rule stating that Members shall not refer to in camera committee discussions in the House. However, I draw Members' attention to Rule 2(g) of the rules of the Legislative Assembly which states that, "point of order means any departure from any written or unwritten rule or custom of this Assembly or of parliamentary tradition." In this instance, the House is governed by its own precedence and long-standing parliamentary traditions and conventions.
In terms of precedence, I am guided by a ruling by Speaker Whitford on February 14, 2001, in which he rules: "It is an infringement of our rules and contrary to parliamentary practice for Members to refer to committee proceedings that have not been reported to this House. Specifically, I want to caution Members about making reference to what may or may not have been said or who may or may not have been in attendance in any proceedings or events outside of this House."
I am also guided by page 885 of Marleau and Montpetit House of Commons Procedures and Practices: "It is not in order for Members to allude to committee proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has presented its report to the House. This restriction applies to both references made by Members in debate or during oral question period."
In this matter, Mr. McLeod is relating information respecting the plans of his department. He is certainly permitted to do so. He alluded to advice he received from the GED committee on proposed expenditures for roads in the Sahtu and throughout the territory.
It is relevant in this case to determine whether the advice Minister McLeod is referring to is specifically included in a committee report that has been tabled in this House. In reviewing the public reports of the GED committee, I can find no specific reference to the advice Minister McLeod referred to in the House on Tuesday. While the committee's Report on the Review of the 2004-2005 Draft Main Estimates does make reference to general discussion in committee about the allocation of transportation funding, there is no clear and specific reference to the Minister having received advice on the matters he referred to in the House on Tuesday. I can thus only conclude that any discussion must have taken place at an in camera meeting of the committee and was not specifically included in its report to the House. Therefore, I find that the Member for Hay River South does have a point of order.
As a cautionary note, I would like to take this opportunity to review a number of matters with all Members. While this matter has been addressed by way of a point or order, breaches of committee confidentiality can also constitute a breach of privilege, if raised as such. I again refer to Marleau and Montpetit from page 838 of their House of Commons Procedures and Practices, and I quote: "Divulging any part of the proceeding of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege."
As your Speaker, I have noted a number of occasions during the 15th Assembly that Members, both Ministers and Regular Members, have inadvertently referred to standing committee business and issues in the course of debate and in question period. In some instances, the issues had been previously reported from committee, but often that has not been the case. Now that the matter has been raised and all Members are aware that such references are a serious transgression, I know my caution will be taken to heart.
I can also understand that often it is not clear what references are allowed and which are not. Certainly, when discussing multi-year planning initiatives, some of the information related to past or current years is likely public knowledge, whereas future plans and initiatives may not be. Clearly, the government has the prerogative to disclose matters not yet public as they see fit, even if these matters have been discussed with committee in camera. However, neither Ministers nor Regular Members are permitted to allude to in camera committee proceedings or evidence until the committee has included these proceedings in its report to the House.
As the current point of order illustrates, this is obviously a very difficult distinction to make in many cases, and it is not one the Chair can be expected to be aware of in all instances. Therefore, Members on both sides of the House have a duty to ensure that they are mindful of the rules about confidential information and are respectful of one another at all times. This is one of those areas where it might be prudent to err on the side of caution so that the privileges of all Members, individually and collectively, are protected.
Thank you, Members. Before I go on, I would like to draw your attention to the visitor's gallery. I would like to draw your attention to the presence of Captain Tony Evans of the HMCS Yellowknife.
---Applause
With Captain Evans is the HMCS sponsor, Pat McMahon.
---Applause
Item 2, Ministers' statements. The honourable Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.