1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
No. 25
OF THE
Friday, April 10, 1992
Ten o'clock a.m.
Prayers by Madam Speaker.
The Hon. C. Gabelmann (Attorney General) on behalf of the Hon. G. Clark, presented the Second Report of the Special Committee of Selection, dealing with Committee of Supply (A) as follows:
Second Report
Parliament Buildings
April 10, 1992 Honourable Speaker:The Special Committee of Selection, appointed on March 17, 1992, begs leave to report that the following is the list of Members to compose Committee of Supply (A) pursuant to a Sessional Order of the House dated March 26, 1992:
Committee of Supply (A) -- Mr. Streifel (Chair), Ms. Brewin, Messrs. Conroy, Dosanjh and Farnworth, Ms. Hammell, Messrs. Hartley and Lovick, Mmes. MacPhail and Pement, Messrs. Ramsey, Randall and Schreck, the Minister whose Estimates are being considered in Committee A, Messrs. K. Jones, Jarvis and Chisholm, Ms. Stephens, Messrs. Cowie and Warnke, and Messrs. Hanson and Serwa.
The Special Committee of Selection advises the Legislative Assembly that the issue of Members substituting for another pursuant to the Sessional Order dated March 26, 1992, broadcasting and media access is to be revisited by the House Leaders.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Committee.
Hon. Glen Clark, Chair
The Report was taken as read and received.
By leave, on the motion of the Hon. C. Gabelmann, the Report was adopted.
The Hon. B. Barlee (Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) tabled the 1990-91 Annual Report for the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority together with Financial Statements as at March 31, 1991.
The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."
Order called for "Private Members' Statements."
Leave granted to the Member for Abbotsford to present a Member's Statement.
Order for Committee of Supply called.
The House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.
(In the Committee)
The Committee rose and reported progress.
Report to be considered at the next sitting.
Committee to sit again at the next sitting.
The Speaker delivered her reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
On Friday last, the Member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove sought to raise a matter of privilege in the Legislative Assembly. The essence of his allegation was that the Attorney General had seen, and admitted having seen, a copy of a Draft Report of the Constitution Committee prior to presentation in the House of the Final Report. The Member quoted the following comments of the Attorney General:
"Some members may know that I was the deputy chair of the constitution committee in a previous parliament, and as a result of the preliminary work we did last year, I sure have a sense of how difficult the task was for members of that committee. I read the report yesterday. I thought it was an absolutely outstanding report."
It is important in this case to take note of the facts which may be gathered from the Journals and records of the House. Firstly, this House appointed a Committee, during the previous Session prior to the election, which was called the Select Standing Committee on Constitutional Matters and Intergovernmental Relations, of which the Attorney General was the Deputy Chair. That Committee held numerous hearings and meetings during the period prior to the election and, in fact, tabled a Preliminary Report with the Clerk of the House on August 15, 1991, after the House had adjourned. That Report urged that the Committee's work be continued.
Secondly, after the election, by consent of all parties, a Members' Committee on the Constitution was formed and held a variety of hearings prior to the commencement of this Session and tabled an Interim Report with the Clerk of the House on February 18, 1992.
Thirdly, the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters, appointed on Opening Day, then proceeded to hold numerous hearings and tabled a Final Report on April 2. It is important to note that the Final Report incorporated the results of hearings held over the past year and the Chair can see no reason why the Attorney General, who was in part responsible for its content, should not in fact have received a draft of the Report.
The greater issue raised by the alleged breach of privilege, however, relates to access to Draft Reports of Committees. It has been the practice in this House that Members of the House may see material presented to Committees and may also see Draft Reports prior to their presentation in the House. The restraint on the Member is that the Member not publish or repeat the contents of such material before the Committee has actually reported to the House.
Parliament has exercised its right to bar preliminary publication of Reports on the grounds that such preliminary publication would tend to impair the work of the Committee. It is important to note the distinction between the bar on preliminary publication to the public and the receipt by a Member of the House of a copy of a Report prior to its presentation in the House.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice (20th Edition) at pages 153 and 154, indicates that with respect to publication of evidence, the rule was not usually enforced where the evidence had been presented at public meetings. However, the publication or disclosure of proceedings of committees closed to the public, or of Draft Reports of committees before they have been reported to the House, will constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt.
The Chair observes that the Attorney General's comments were made some two hours after the Report was presented in the House.
For these reasons, I must accordingly find that there is no breach of privilege.
Joan Sawicki, Speaker
And then the House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.
JOAN SAWICKI, Speaker
NOTICE OF MOTIONS
Tuesday Next
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2002: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada