A precedent for not tabling documents

In his remarks today in the House of Commons, Tom Lukiwski, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, cited what he believed was a possible precedent for how (presumably) the government would like the Speaker to rule when it comes to this morning's questions of privilege.

After some consultation with Jay Hill's office to find the exact case Lukiwski was referring to, here's the Hansard for the Speaker's ruling he mentioned, from June 8, 2006:

 I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 17, 2006, and again on May 19, 2006, by the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier concerning the tabling of the document referred to by the Prime Minister during Question Period.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also wish to thank the hon. member for Outremont for his intervention and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his response.

In raising this matter, the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier stated that, in response to a question posed during Question Period on May 17, the Prime Minister had quoted from what appeared to be a cabinet document and that, according to the rules of the House, the Prime Minister was obliged to table the document.

On Friday, May 19, 2006, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded to the point of order. He indicated that the Prime Minister had not specifically quoted from any document. He clarified that the document in question was being used as a briefing note and that the rules do not require the tabling of briefing notes. The hon. government House leader further argued that the document was a cabinet document that could not be tabled because it dealt directly with national security measures that could jeopardize the safety of Canadian soldiers.

I have reviewed the Debates for May 17, 2006, as well as the tape of that day's Question Period. The video clearly showed that in responding to a question put by the hon. member for Laval--Les Îles, the right hon. Prime Minister did read from a document as the hon. members for Ottawa--Vanier and Outremont have argued.

There is a longstanding practice that any document quoted by a minister in debate or in response to a question during question period must be tabled forthwith if so requested. This practice is described on page 518 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice and I believe it would be helpful to all hon. members if I were to cite this passage:

     Any document quoted by a Minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled. Indeed, a Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch (an official written message on government affairs) or other state paper without being prepared to table it if it can be done without injury to the public interest.

In addition to Marleau and Montpetit, this practice has been described in other procedural authorities, including various editions of Beauchesne and Erskine May. Indeed, the hon. government House leader quoted citation 495(2) of Beauchesne's 6th edition when he responded that the document could not be tabled because its contents concerned national security matters.

Moreover, this practice was upheld in 1983 when the Deputy Speaker ruled that he was satisfied, after hearing arguments, that the Minister of State (International Trade) could not table a document because it would involve some risk of security to the Canadian diplomatic communications service. This precedent can be found at pages 28627 to 28631 of the Debates for November 2, 1983.

In light of this precedent and the statement put forth by the hon. Government House Leader that the security of Canadian soldiers could be jeopardized, I must rule that the Prime Minister is under no obligation to table the document in question.

I thank the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier for having brought this matter to the attention of the Chair.