Good afternoon, colleagues. Before we proceed today I’d like to provide my ruling on the point of order raised on Monday, February 25, 2013, by the Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Hawkins rose on a point of order further to reviewing the transcripts of a question and answer exchange between himself and the Premier, the Honourable Bob McLeod, on Friday, February 22, 2013.
Mr. Hawkins’ point is that the Premier, in responding to Mr. Hawkins’ questions, breached Rule 2(g) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly by referring to confidential standing committee discussions on an infrastructure project.
Rule 2(g) states, “Point of order means any departure from any written or unwritten rule or custom of this Assembly or of Parliamentary tradition.” I’m guided by previous rulings by Speakers of this Assembly, and by Marleau and Montpetit House of Commons Procedures and Practices, in confirming that reference to confidential committee discussions does constitute a violation of Rule 2(g).
The point of order, therefore, turns on whether Premier McLeod did in fact breach confidentiality.
In considering this matter, I have reviewed the unedited Hansard from February 22, 2013, and in particular Premier McLeod’s comments on page 26, which were also quoted by Mr. Hawkins in speaking to his point or order. Premier McLeod said, “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.”
I have also reviewed the unedited Hansard from February 25, 2013. In raising the point of order, Mr. Hawkins stated, on page 1, “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 there was a breach of committee confidentiality.”
In responding to the point of order, the Premier stated, at page 2 of the unedited Hansard, "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.”
The Member for Thebacha, the Honourable Michael Miltenberger, also spoke to the point of order. Mr. Miltenberger stated, at page 1 of unedited Hansard, “I just want to 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 found Mr. Miltenberger’s comments most helpful in addressing this matter. Mr. Hawkins himself acknowledged that he was unable to find any documentation substantiating that committee had, as Premier McLeod suggested, caused the courthouse project to be removed from the budget. I note that remarks made by the then Minister of Justice, the Honourable Brendan Bell, provide an alternate explanation for the decision. I quote Minister Bell from the Hansard from March 6, 2007, at page 1236, “…the delay in the courthouse is the direct result of limited capital funds and seemingly unlimited capital needs across government, whether it’s repairing schools or other things. Members are fully aware of the rationale for delaying the courthouse at this point.”
As your Speaker, I do not claim to know what the committee’s position was on the courthouse in 2005, 2006 or 2007. I only note that there are now at least two explanations on record, Minister Bell’s and now Premier McLeod’s, for why the courthouse project was taken out of the budget.
I also considered it relevant that, as Members should well know by now, no committee has the authority to remove an infrastructure project from a budget. The decision on whether to include an item in a budget proposed to the Legislative Assembly lies solely with the government. The decision to remove an item included in a budget before the Legislative Assembly lies solely with the Assembly. This is best summarized in the oft quoted phrase, “The government proposes, the Legislature disposes.”
As I stated earlier, the point of order turns on the question of whether Premier McLeod breached committee confidentiality. However, Premier McLeod could not have breached committee confidentiality in stating that a committee took an infrastructure project out of the budget, when, in the first place, no standing committee has the authority to do this and, in the second place, none of the Members who spoke to the point of order indicated they had direct knowledge or evidence that the discussions or positions attributed to the committee in fact took place or existed.
Therefore, I find that the Member for Yellowknife Centre does not have a point of order.
However, that’s not to say that Premier McLeod’s comments do not raise some concerns, and I would like to take this opportunity to caution Members on a few matters.
First, it’s important to point out whether the Premier believed his statement to be a true reflection of how the infrastructure project came to be removed from the budget is irrelevant to the question of whether Rule 2(g) was infringed. The issue is whether the Premier breached confidential committee discussions. Had the subject matter been more recent committee business, and had it been possible to better substantiate the accuracy of the position or discussions attributed to the committee, the same remarks may well have been ruled out of order.
Second, as your Speaker, I am concerned that comments such as those made by Premier McLeod may contribute to inaccurate public perceptions about the decision-making processes of this Assembly.
As I emphasized earlier, no committee has the authority to remove an infrastructure item from a budget. The government proposes and the Legislature disposes.
Colleagues, in many instances during the 17th Assembly, I have noticed both Regular Members and Cabinet Members making references to committee business and discussions that have not been previously reported. I can appreciate that sometimes the distinction between which references are allowed and which are not can sometimes be a difficult one to make.
In this matter, I find Speaker Delorey’s guidance in his October 21, 2004, ruling helpful and quote the following: “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 privileges of all Members, individually and collectively, are protected.”
I would like to echo these words and ask my Members to take them to heart as we continue to work together through the 17th Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Members.
---Applause
