Good afternoon, colleagues. Colleagues, before we begin, I wish to provide my ruling on the point of privilege raised in the House last Friday by Mr. Miltenberger. As Members know, the responsibility of the Speaker when a point of privilege has been raised is to determine whether, at first sight, a case of privilege has been established and that the matter has been raised at the first possible opportunity.
To start, I will quote Mr. Miltenberger’s point of privilege in its entirety from page 24 of the unedited Hansard for February 12, 2010, as it is relatively short: “Mr. Speaker, we have an understanding that we have confidential briefings with committee. We share information. It should be respected. The Member is clearly aware that there are processes and negotiations underway. This information was shared last night, yesterday morning and Tuesday night. My point of privilege is that by disclosing the specifics, the scenarios and all the various things that we are trying to talk about as we try to resolve this issue are bringing forward into a public forum from a confidential forum, information that was agreed to be kept confidential until we concluded our arrangements. Thank you.”
Colleagues, our rules do not exhaustively lay out the collective and individual privileges of the House. Rule 19(6), however, does provide some guidance. The rule states: “unless otherwise directed by the Assembly, it is not a breach of privilege for a Member of a standing or special committee to discuss with other Members of the Assembly, on a confidential basis, matters that are under consideration by a committee.” This rule would appear to imply that discussing confidential matters in any other way could constitute a breach of privilege.
Other parliamentary authorities support this conclusion. Citation 850 of Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms (6th Edition) states that “a committee, having the right to exclude strangers at any time, has the right to sit in private
and have its proceedings protected by privilege.” Citation 851 goes on to say that “when a committee chooses to meet in camera, all matters are confidential. Any departure from strict confidentiality should be by explicit committee decision which should deal with what matters should be published, in which forum and by whom.” Further, O’Brien and Bosc, on pages 1077-78 of House of Commons Practice and Procedure, Second Edition, states that “divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.“
It is quite clear, Members, that when an unauthorized breach of committee confidentiality has been established, the House may deal with it as a matter of privilege. The question before me is whether a breach of confidentiality has been established. Making a determination on this is complicated by the fact that I do not, nor should I, attend committee meetings. It is also complicated by the fact that a press release was issued on this matter that made public at least some of the information that was shared with the committee in camera. Mr. Krutko was helpful in pointing this out in speaking to the point of privilege and I thank him for that.
It appears to me that Minister Michael McLeod, on his own initiative, scheduled an urgent briefing with standing committee to provide Members with the most up-to-date information on the status of the Deh Cho Bridge Project. He made it clear that sensitive negotiations were underway with both a new contractor and the project's lenders and that the information that was being provided to committee was confidential as a result of these ongoing negotiations. While the Minister did provide some of the details on the status of the bridge project in a media release issued last Friday, he also noted that negotiations between the parties continued. Although no one in debate made specific reference to this, it seems that the point of privilege was brought about by the mentioning of a specific piece of information that was not mentioned publicly in the media release. Again, I was not present at the briefing and have no knowledge of what information was or was not provided. I am, however, persuaded by the interventions of Minister Miltenberger, Minister Michael McLeod and MLA
Hawkins, each of whom I assume was in attendance at the full in-camera briefing. Other than Mr. Krutko’s above-mentioned intervention, no other Member who was present at the meeting provided a different account. On page 26 of the unedited Hansard, Mr. Hawkins, in speaking to the point of privilege, stated, “I think today is another example of where consensus government isn’t working, yet it’s supposed to be the principles of how we share and work together. I don’t think stating a ballpark number or an actual number does anything to our process but destroy it.”
Members have several times in this session made reference to the principles of consensus government that were adopted by Caucus last year. I'm glad to hear this as I thought for a while that all the hard and honest discussion that went into agreeing to these principles may have been lost. These principles clearly define what it means to "do" government in our consensus system. They define how we are unique. Principle number four talks about the “double-edged nature” of the dialogue we enjoy in our system between Cabinet and committees. Committees and Regular Members enjoy far more access to sensitive information and have greater opportunity to influence public policy in our system than in any other. This open and honest exchange of information is what makes our consensus system stand out. It is why Members consistently show very strong support for how we do business here, often in the face of public criticism and calls for fundamental change. As principle number four suggests, however, this sharing of information comes with great responsibility. If Members want to be kept up to speed on sensitive matters as they develop, they must agree to keep information confidential until it is properly ready for release. Failure to do so breaks the bargain that we have all agreed to.
Minister Michael McLeod, in my view, met the standard that Members have consistently called for when he came forward and shared highly sensitive information with committee in an open, timely, straightforward, yet confidential manner. This is what Members seem to consistently call for and it would appear that the Minister, to his credit, met the standard. In making reference to specific pieces of information from that briefing that were not intended for release to the public, the bargain was broken. I find that a prima facie matter of parliamentary privilege has been established in this instance and that the matter was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. My duty done, it is now up to the House to determine how to proceed.
Colleagues, before I proceed, I want to comment on the recent surge of points of privilege and order in the House. Whenever I am asked to rule on a matter, the appearance of winners and losers is created. This is not a game, however, and there is
no scorecard. Our rules are in place to help us debate the important matters before us in a respectful, dignified and efficient manner. The rules of the House are a means to this end. They are not an end unto themselves. When Members consistently use provocative and accusatory language and others respond by raising points of order or privilege, we have entered into a "race to the bottom" and lose sight of what we are really here to do. Consensus government is not intended to be tame or absent of heated debate. It should, however, take on a tone that reflects the importance and gravity of the issues before this House as opposed to the “showmanship” we often see in other Legislatures. If nothing else, the tone should be dignified, even in times of high emotion and fundamental disagreement. As we move forward from today, I urge you all to recommit yourselves to the principles of consensus government that we agreed to last year. If Members collectively tone down the rhetoric a notch or two, and thicken our skins a little, I am confident that we can get back to serving the people of the Northwest Territories in a manner that will reflect positively on this institution. The public expect to see us debate issues that make a difference in their daily lives. I don't believe parliamentary procedure is one of these issues. It rests with you. As your Speaker, I will, of course, continue to apply your rules in as fair and objective a manner as I am able. Thank you, Members.
Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers’ statements. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.