Before we proceed this afternoon, I would like to provide my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Hay River South, Mrs.
Groenewegen, on Thursday, February 14,
2008. Mrs. Groenewegen raised her point of order in response to answers provided by Premier Roland’s Oral Question 66-16(2) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008. Mrs. Groenewegen raised the point of order after reviewing the unedited Hansard for that day and therefore did so at the earliest possible opportunity.
In summary, Mrs. Groenewegen’s point of order suggested that in his reply to her question, the Premier contravened parliamentary rules by referencing specific matters contained in a document not before the House; namely, the Deh Cho Bridge concession agreement. In debate to her point of order Mrs. Groenewegen requested that the Premier table the concession agreement such that all Members of the House could have access to it in debate.
In rebuttal Premier Roland suggested that his answers were based on information contained in briefing notes and other information items ordinarily given to Ministers in preparation for question period. The Premier concluded by stating that he did not reference a page or any section of the concession agreement.
When debate concluded, I reserved my decision on the point of order to allow time to review the unedited Hansard from Wednesday, February 13, 2008, and rule on the point of order the following day.
In dealing with similar matters in this House, presiding officers have focused on one primary question: did the Member or Minister in question quote from or cite a document not before the House? Rulings by Speaker Gargan on February 13, 1998, and on February 18, 1998, exactly ten years ago, were particularly instructive.
The Rules of the Legislative Assembly are silent on this matter, so in addition to past rulings, I sought guidance from two parliamentary authorities: Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms and House Of Commons Procedure and Practice, more commonly known as Marleau and Montpetit.
Beauchesne’s citation 495(2) reads as follows:
“It has been admitted that a document, which has been cited, ought to be laid down upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.”
Citation 495(5) provides clarity on the parliamentary use of the term “cited.”
“To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate. The admission that a document exists or the reading of the salutation or address of a letter does not constitute citing.”
Marleau and Montpetit adds further instruction on the matter of citing documents not before the House and the requirements to table them, quoting from page 518:
“Any document quoted by a Minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled… The principle upon which this is based is that where information is given to the House, the House itself is entitled to the same information as the honourable member who may quote the document. A public document referred to but not cited by a Minister need not be tabled.”
A careful review of the unedited Hansard for Wednesday, February 13, 2008, shows no clear indication that the Premier made a direct quote or a citation from any document in his response to the Member for Hay River South’s question.
The Chair concludes that the Premier did not exceed the parliamentary limits imposed by previous Speakers’ rulings or our common parliamentary authorities; therefore, the Member for Hay River South does not have a point of order.
Even if the Premier had quoted from the document in question, the matter of the public interest would still have to be taken into account. While I will not address this directly today, I will remind all Members that one of the things that makes our system of government so unique is the free flow of information between the executive and legislative branches of government. While this is often referred to as a double-edged sword, without it consensus government would cease to exist.
I want to encourage Members on both sides of the House to be diligent in terms of both sharing information when necessary and appropriate and showing discretion when that information is received. Thank you, colleagues.
We will now proceed to Orders of the Day and item 2, Ministers’ statements.