Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous

April 25, 1988

Debates, pp. 14787-8

On March 28, 1988, following Question Period, Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) rose on a point of order to ask the Speaker to check the "blues" to determine whether or not the Hon. John Crosbie (Minister of Transport) should be required to table what the Member described as "rationalization studies of Canadian National Railways regarding the Moncton shops". He argued that the Minister had cited this document in answering a question posed to him by Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East) during Question Period. Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council) indicated that the "blues" would be checked and that the matter would be brought to the attention of Mr. Crosbie. The Speaker stated he also would review the matter but noted Mr. Benjamin had himself indicated that the Minister had not quoted from the documents.^[1]

Following Question Period on March 29, Mr. Benjamin rose on a question of privilege to comment further on the matter. He gave several definitions of the word "cite" contained in various dictionaries and, using this as a base, claimed that on three separate occasions the Minister had cited "CN's studies". The Member argued that by citing the rationalization studies regarding the Moncton shops, the Minister was required to table these studies. The Member also claimed that the Minister had referred to information contained in these studies. He concluded his submission by suggesting to the Speaker that although his line of thought might be a departure from conventional procedure, a new precedent should be established in this regard.

Mr. Crosbie contended that, in making his response the day before, he did not "quote from any study, letter or document". He maintained that if he was required by the Speaker to table a document he would have nothing to table. The Minister conceded that he was aware of a study in this area done years ago by CN but in this instance he had quoted no such study. He urged the Speaker to dismiss this request. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On April 25, 1988, the Speaker rendered his decision which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: On March 28 and 29, 1988, the Honourable Member for Regina West raised a point of order contending that, in response to a question asked by the Honourable Member for St. John's East during Question Period on March 28, the former Minister of Transport, now the Minister for International Trade, cited a document when he referred to "CN's studies" and, therefore, that he should be required to table in the House the rationalization studies of Canadian National Railways [respecting] the Moncton shops.

The Chair is appreciative of the arguments put forward by the honourable Member for Regina West and the Minister's unequivocal response to the point of order.

The rule which guides the House and the Chair on this matter is very clear and precise. It is found on page 433 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, Twentieth Edition, and repeated in Citation 327 of Beauchesne Fifth Edition, as follows:

A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table. Similarly, it has been accepted that a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.

Beauchesne Citation 327 goes even further:

The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.

In fact, in their observations, the honourable Member for Regina West and the Minister did not question the rule. They just raised the question as to whether the Minister had actually "quoted" from the "CN studies", thus creating an obligation to table them, according to a recognized and accepted rule and tradition of the House.

The honourable Member for Regina West very ably gave the House several definitions of the words "cite" and "quote" to substantiate his arguments. Though he was very convincing in his approach, the Chair must nevertheless refer to past practice and rulings in determining what interpretation has been given procedurally to those words . Essentially, as there is general acceptance of the rule itself, there is also general unanimity in the interpretation given over the years by various Speakers. For there to be an obligation on the Minister to table a document, it has to have been actually quoted from.

For example, on November 16, 1971, Speaker Lamoureux said as recorded at page 922 of the House of Commons Journals:

In fairness, looking at the matter as objectively as I can, I do not see how it is possible for the Chair to make a ruling at this point that a document that has simply been referred to but has not been directly quoted should be tabled in debate. I find it difficult to rule otherwise... If a document has been actually cited or quoted in debate by a Minister of the Crown, it has to be tabled. If only reference is made to it, I do not see how there is an obligation to table it.

Further, on April 8, 1976, as can be found at page 12612 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Jerome gave the same interpretation when he ruled that the obligation to table a document:

-certainly has never been held to apply to a situation in which a Minister has simply been asked a question about a document and given an answer.

Finally, in a case similar to the one now before the House, Speaker Bosley confirmed numerous rulings by his predecessors when, on November 14, 1984, he said, as reported at page 220 of the House of Commons Debates:

It seems to me that when a Minister is specifically questioned about a document and he refers to that document in the course of his reply, it would be difficult to find that he was attempting to influence debate.

Although the honourable Member for Regina West contended that there are reasons to establish a precedent on this point, I do not intend to move away from the uniform interpretations of my predecessors and to give the term "cite" a new procedurally different meaning.

As to whether the Minister actually quoted from a document, the Minister's statement on March 29 that he has no such study, that he did not quote from any such study and that he has nothing that he could table, stands on its own and, according to our tradition, the House must accept his word.

I therefore must conclude that, since the Minister has not actually quoted from the "CN's studies", he is not obliged to table the document in question.

I thank the honourable Member for Regina West for the opportunity to clarify this important aspect of our procedure, but I also say to the honourable Member, having listened very carefully to both the question and the answer and having considered very carefully the argument of the honourable Member for Regina West, I think it might be fair to observe that Ministers perhaps could avoid applications of this kind by being very careful not to leave in the minds of questioners that there may be a document which, naturally, anybody asking questions in the House would seek to have tabled. I thank both the honourable Member and the Hon. Minister for their interventions.

F0714-e

33-2

1988-04-25