Danielle In QP, December 3: Tobacco Recovery Lawsuit

 
Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government deserves a prize for fiction. Their stories on issue after issue read more like fairy tales than fact. On the budget they insist more borrowing and more debt is actually a balanced budget. On the issue of MLA pay they tried to convince us that the new pay of $156,000 is less than the old pay of $145,000. Now on the tobacco lawsuit the fantasy is just as absurd, with the Premier insisting a decision isn’t a decision. Does the Premier still insist her decision selecting . . .

Speaker’s Ruling

Questions about the Subject of a Privilege Motion

The Speaker: Hon. member, this issue is just exactly what I referred to. If you wish to rephrase your question, I’ll allow you this one opportunity to do so. It is against the rules to raise issues about a question of privilege which is before the Speaker for consideration and he has not yet ruled on. That was part of why I just stood up to say what I just said. Recast your question. It’ll be allowed.

Tobacco Recovery Lawsuit

(continued)

Ms Smith: I’m seeking clarification on whether the Premier still insists her decision in regard to the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers is not a decision.

Speaker’s Ruling

Questions about the Subject of a Privilege Motion

The Speaker: Hon. member, let me just read this again in case some people missed it for whatever reason. On page 502 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice it states very clearly, “Furthermore, a question should not . . . deal with the subject matter of a question of privilege previously raised, on which the Speaker reserved his decision.” Now, those are the rules, and that is quoted verbatim from the text that I cited. This particular point of privilege was raised by one of your own members, hon. leader. Let us proceed with your question rephrased if you would, please. Thank you.

We have a point of order noted. The leader of the New Democratic opposition.

Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 13(2), which says, “The Speaker shall explain the reasons for any decision on the request of a Member,” my question is this: given that the point of privilege is exactly on the point of misleading the House and nothing else . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, please have a seat. I’ve just explained this twice now. I’m not going to explain it a third time. The rationale is in the ruling that’s in the House of Commons, and I’ve just enunciated it and read it out twice. Let’s please abide by the rules as they exist. We’re not here to invent them or remake them at this stage. If the House leaders wish to do that and apply a local rule here, then I invite them to get together and have that discussion. In the meantime let us proceed with the balance of the question from the hon. Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Tobacco Recovery Lawsuit

(continued)

Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll move on to my first supplemental. Given that the Premier still insists she played no role in choosing the firm and instead points to her successor in Justice as the one who made the decision, then why is it that in the nearly 100 pages of documents received on this matter, the name of . . .

Speaker’s Ruling

Questions about the Subject of a Privilege Motion

The Speaker: Hon. member, please have a seat. Shall I read this a third time, then? Let’s not get down to that level, please. You’re all somewhat experienced now in parliamentary practice and procedures. I’ve allowed a lot of leeway, particularly for new members, including you, Leader of the Official Opposition. I’ve allowed a lot of leeway for first-time members from the government side, from all the other parties.

When a law exists, it exists for a reason. Let us contemplate for just a moment what society would be like without any laws at all or if people chose to break them even after they have been admonished, reminded, perhaps chastised once, twice, three times. What kind of a society would we have? What kind of Assembly would we have? I ask you to ponder those questions.

I’m not up here to hear myself speak. I’m up here to help you understand your roles if that’s the case and to enforce the laws as they exist. These are not my personal laws. These are not your personal laws. These are the laws that you agreed to abide by when you took your oath. I would remind you to please start sticking to them more fervently, or I’ll have to remind you again to do so. Let’s move on with your second main set of questions and see how they go.

Tobacco Recovery Lawsuit

(continued)

Ms Smith: Given that the Justice department wrote an e-mail to CBC on July 5 stating that on December 14, 2010, the then Justice minister determined that TRL consortium provided the best made in- Alberta litigation – the decision was communicated to the consortiums and law firms shortly after – would the Premier still insist that this was her successor’s decision?

The Speaker: Hon. member, I do not understand why you continue to go against the law which I’ve cited three or four times now. Please, if you’re not prepared to rephrase, I’ll just move to the next person on the list. You have one last shot.