Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. I’ve waited until today to raise the point of order because I wanted to review the previous day’s Hansard. During an exchange with the Premier regarding the courthouse, I made note that on Friday, February 22, 2013, on page 26 of the Hansard, Premier McLeod makes the following statement: “We did, as the government put it, have that project, called the NWT Law Courts Project, and we put $40 million in the capital budget in 2005-2006. Committee took it out of the budget.” There lays the point of order issue.
So I draw all Members’ attention to Rule 2(g) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly which states, “’Point of Order’ means any departure from any written or unwritten rule or custom of this Assembly or of Parliamentary tradition.” It is, in this instance, the House is governed by its own precedence and long-standing parliamentary traditions and convection.
To confirm this, I have searched high and low and combed committee reports, and I have not found any formal position taken on it, so I draw the attention of the House that that was a breach of committee confidentiality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I will allow a little bit of debate on the point of order. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to just make the point that if the Member says that he couldn’t find any reference to it high or low and then he says it’s a breach of committee confidentiality, if in fact there’s no evidence or reference to it, how can it be a breach of committee confidentiality? I think the Member is really reaching here on a fairly specious matter. So I would just put that on the record for your consideration as you look at this particular matter. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the point of order. Honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the $40 million was put on the capital budget as a marker. It had considerable opposition. It was my understanding that that’s what happened. So we’ll search as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was no formal direction on this particular initiative and I have comments that say as such. That only causes me to conclude two things: the discussion of the courthouse future and its followance, missing or absence on any future capital plan, had to have been done in camera; second, with the lack of any formal correspondence, it’s only reasonable to assume the deletion of the courthouse from its capital plan must have formally been done either in Cabinet, which does not include Members. Accordingly, I will speak to the appropriate order, as such, with this sort of supporting documentation.
In terms of precedence, I would like to draw and highlight page 891, dated October 21, 2004, where Speaker Delorey says, on an identical breach – oddly enough by Michael McLeod who was Minister then – says, “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.”
Speaker Delorey goes on by saying, “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.’”
What becomes further relevant here is Speaker Delorey rules that Minister Michael McLeod can quote himself as in any case they can speak to their decision as a department lead or the department’s position on the particular case, but they cannot quote things that have happened in camera, or a discussion of those meetings.
Speaker Delorey reminds the House that a Minister can quote public documents, again, that have been tabled before the House.
As I cited in my earlier comments, in my research over the weekend I found no comment in Hansard or reports that have been laid before the House, and I’ve studied all relevant information over the 15th and 16th Assemblies, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, there seems to be an absence of any direction, or the House’s direction, either by the Minister of Justice or by the appropriate Minister.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the point I’m getting to, is that nothing can be found, so where did this information, “committee took it out of the budget,” come from? It can only be found because the Premier has made a statement and I’m not sure from where.
That’s the crux of the issue. Concluding that this discussion Premier McLeod is referencing is from an unknown in-camera discussion perhaps, it can only be considered maybe from the Cabinet table.
In closing, it’s critical to note that this matter can only be dealt with by way of point of order. Breaches of committee confidentiality are a breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure you are well aware of the rules.
Again, referring to Marleau-Montpetit, my last point here on page 838 of the House of Commons Procedures and Practices, “Divulging any part of our proceedings, an in-camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.” So Members are often blamed for the release of the findings, or findings of confidential information to the public. My point is such that clearly there’s been one done here. Even Cabinet can be capable at times as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the point of order. I will take it under advisement, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Premier, and I will bring it back to the House at a later day. Thank you.
