1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Nos. 12 and 13

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia


Thursday, March 24, 1994


Ten o'clock a.m.

Prayers by Mr. M. de Jong.

The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."

Pursuant to Order, the House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

The debate continued.

On the motion of Ms. Boone, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

And then the House adjourned at 11.52 a.m.


Thursday, March 24, 1994

Two o'clock p.m.

Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."

Leave was not granted for the Hon. G. Clark (Minister of Employment and Investment) to answer on behalf of the Hon. M. F. Harcourt (Premier), a question taken on notice.

The Hon. G. Clark (Minister of Employment and Investment) made a ministerial statement on behalf of the Hon. M. F. Harcourt (Premier) relating to the withdrawal of a lawsuit against the Official Opposition House Leader by Mr. Marc Eliesen, Chief Executive Officer of B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Farrell-Collins made a statement.

Mr. Mitchell asked leave, pursuant to Standing Order 35, to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the confidence of this Assembly in the Government's role in the recent change in presiding officers of this House.

Mr. Speaker stated that he would have to deny the motion at this time, as there was a matter already before the Chair dealing with related facts.

The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."

Pursuant to Order, the House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

The debate continued.

On the motion of Mr. Garden, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:

Honourable Members:

On Tuesday last, the Honourable Member for Peace River South raised a question of privilege with respect to allegations in the media surrounding the position of Speaker relative to the Government.

The Member referred to articles from the media alleging that the former Speaker had been "asked by the Government to step down as Speaker" and suggested that such allegations were confirmed by the fact that they were neither corrected, challenged or denied by the former Speaker.

In the opinion of the Member, there was Government interference with the Chair and that constituted, as such, a breach of the collective privileges of all Members. The Member tabled a number of documents which included a detailed outline of his point of privilege, the former Speaker's statement of resignation, a number of media reports and extracts reflecting the allegations referred to by the Member and a copy of the motion he intended to move should a prima facie case of privilege be established.

The Chair also heard and considered comments from other Members on this issue and is thankful for their contribution.

It is incumbent on the Chair to decide if a prima facie case of privilege has been established by the Member, to determine "if the case is of such a character as to entitle it to a motion" (Beauchesne, 6th edition, paragraph 26 (3) and May, 19th edition, page 231).

I have thoroughly reviewed the material tabled. Situations giving rise to doubts about the independence of the Speaker are of a grave concern to this House. Members must at all times have full confidence in the Speaker as an essential element in the functioning of the House.

In the situation at hand, the allegations in the media reports have remained unsubstantiated and were neither confirmed nor denied. Lack of denial of alleged facts does not constitute admission.

The Chair is therefore in a position of having to render a decision based on a series of unsubstantiated allegations. The fact that the allegations are of a serious nature does not thereby render them a matter of privilege.

The Chair has heard nothing from the Member, other than the media allegations, to indicate that any undue influence was exercised by the Government with respect to the former Speaker's resignation.

I recognize that the Honourable Member has great respect for the institution of Parliament and is quite concerned and aggrieved by what he considers to be a matter of privilege, but unless there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations, a prima facie matter of privilege has not been established. The Chair's examination of the documentation tabled by the Member leads to the conclusion that there is substantial uncertainty as to the facts alleged in the media reports. The strict definition of parliamentary privilege cannot be expanded to include controversies as to facts.

There are a number of rulings in this House and in other jurisdictions clearly stating that unsubstantiated allegations of facts or disputed facts "does not fulfill the condition of parliamentary privilege" (Beauchesne, 6th edition, paragraph 31 (1)).

More particularly, I refer Members to the Journals of British Columbia, April 13, 1982, page 41, June 8, 1982, page 132 and June 29, 1988, page 128, where Speakers of the day consistently ruled that matters of privilege cannot be based on disputed facts, and I quote partly from the June 8 ruling "This is clearly a dispute as to facts and accordingly does not qualify as a matter of privilege."

The Chair wishes to note that the former Speaker was elected to the Chair and continued in that Office until she resigned, which resignation was immediately followed by the election of a new Speaker at the next sitting. This process was in conformity with section 42 of the Constitution Act of British Columbia, the Standing Orders of this House and with the provisions of May's 19th edition at page 267.

In the circumstances, and in accordance with the reasons outlined and the authorities cited above, I am unable to find that the Member has established a prima facie case of privilege.

Emery Barnes, Speaker

And then the House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.

EMERY BARNES, Speaker


NOTICE OF MOTIONS

Monday Next

38  Mr. Farrell-Collins to move the following motion--
That the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders, and Private Bills investigate the matter of the conduct of the Executive Council, including the Premier and the Minister of Employment and Investment, in the removal and/or resignation of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly as follows:
(a) that all hearings be held in public;
(b) that all persons involved, including the Premier, be compelled to testify before such a committee; and
(c) that the committee prepare for this Legislative Assembly a full report, and make such recommendations, as it deems appropriate.

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

Monday Next

37  Mr. Weisgerber to ask the Hon. the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks the following questions:
1. What is the process an applicant must follow when filing an agricultural lease application?
2. What is the process the government must follow upon receipt of an agricultural lease application?
3. Is the agricultural lease application process adhered to uniformly province-wide or is there regional input involved?
4. If regional input is considered during the agricultural lease application process, to what extent are the regions involved in the process?
5. Is the same process followed when considering an agricultural lease application if the land in question is part of an aboriginal land claim?
6. If the agricultural lease application process is altered due to a land claim, what is the revised process?

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2002: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada