Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to rise on a point of order based on rules of debate 23, subsections (h) and (i) with respect to the statement made by Mr. Dolynny.
Mr. Dolynny made reference to the fact that the department has encouraged him to submit an ATIPP request and has then filed or suggested that he’d have to pay some fees to get the information that he has.
Mr. Speaker, as MLAs and as Ministers we have to balance the rights to privacy versus the release of information. In this particular case, the Member has been seeking, through the House and during debate in Committee of the Whole, a copy of a contract. We have an obligation to protect the rights of third-party interests in all situations, but in this particular situation, before information on a contract can be released, we would need to go to a third party to seek that additional information. We’ve encouraged the Member to do that. To date, we actually do not have a letter or an application from the MLA requesting this information.
Do you have a point of order?
We do. The point of order is that the Member for Range Lake has suggested that we are impeding his ability to get detailed information to do his job. The fact is, we have encouraged the Member to submit an ATIPP request. The Member has not submitted an ATIPP request. We only have one ATIPP request on this information and it’s from a third party, from an individual who hasn’t identified himself to be working in any capacity with the MLA, and it has been from a home address, not a government address.
I’m concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the Member is suggesting that we are intentionally trying to keep information from him, which is not the case. We have rules, we have procedures, and I’ve encouraged the Member to follow them. I am waiting for the Member to follow them, and when the Member follows them, we will deal with them accordingly.
As far as fines as according to ATIPP, any person can ask to have the fees waived, and in this case nobody has asked for any fees to be waived. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. At this time I’m going to allow a little bit of debate on this point of order. Mr. Dolynny, would you like to respond to that point of order? Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in defence of this point of order. The allegation that this request, this ATIPP request did not come from the office of Range Lake is absolutely absurd. Mr. Grant Pryznyk is a constituency assistant of mine and I think everyone in this House knows he is a constituency assistant of mine. He is the one who submitted the ATIPP request.
So the fact remains that this came from the office of Range Lake and the Minister is clearly aware of this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. I will allow a little bit of discussion on the point of order. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in defence along the lines of Mr. Dolynny’s request. As we all know, two truths or two perspectives can lie before the House and both can be equally correct. They may not necessarily share the same view.
In order for Mr. Dolynny to discharge the duties and functions of his job, as highlighted under privilege under Beauchesne’s on page 11, this is part of the essence of getting to the facts and the details necessary for dialogue and discussion.
No documentation of this nature should be hidden from Members without confidential reasons. That alone should stand on its own merit and use at the most finest opportunity ever to defend why we don’t release things because of that.
So, Mr. Speaker, in short, I think there is no point of order on this one. Mr. Dolynny is executing his job, as I certainly understand he is. He’s reaching out under privilege in his ability to do his job. I think Beauchesne’s stands clearly on the record and says he has to execute that duty, and by asking for information denied by the Department of Public Works, even fettered by Public Works or delayed by Public Works, whatever the circumstances are, it’s stopping him from fulfilling that.
So I say Mr. Abernethy doesn’t have a point of order. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Menicoche, to the point of order.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In speaking with Mr. Dolynny this morning and yesterday, he did show me documentation that actually was a response to his request, in fact asking him for money to get that information that we as MLAs are privileged to get. I don’t know what’s going on with our Legislature, but we should not be paying to get information from the Cabinet side. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Miltenberger, to the point of order. Mr. Miltenberger has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is the Minister has risen on a point of order where he’s said the Member opposite was imputing motive contrary to our rules of order. We’re engaging in a debate over material not before the House, so the Speaker is going to be required to use all his skill to sort through what has transpired. The information we’ve seen was that the documents filed were by private individuals that didn’t identify themselves.
It’s a busy day today. Today is important for other things. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do our normal good work and carry on with the business of the House. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. At this time, I will close on this point of order and take it under advisement and report back to the House tomorrow. Mr. Hawkins.
