1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

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

Nos. 33 and 34

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

Tuesday, April 19, 1994

Ten o'clock a.m.

Prayers by Mr. Hanson.

The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."

Ms. Stephens presented a petition.

Order for Committee of Supply called.

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of Supply (estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food).

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section B of Committee of Supply (estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights).

(In Committee)

Section B of Committee of Supply reported progress.

Report to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

Section A of Committee of Supply reported progress.

Report to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

Mr. Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:

Honourable Members:

On Thursday, April 14, the Member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi sought to raise a matter of privilege, namely that the Attorney General ought to step aside while a Special Prosecutor investigates the veracity of a charge.

In support of his application he tabled a list of Cabinet Ministers who, in the past, had resigned in a variety of circumstances. The list does not, on its face, contain any indication of a connection between any of the incidents listed and matters of privilege.

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice (21st edition) at page 69 defines privilege as follows:

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual Members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members. Other such rights and immunities such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."

It is important that a distinction be drawn between situations which would involve a breach of privilege by, for instance, impeding a Member in the performance of his or her duties, and situations which are by their very nature political.

I would refer Members to two decisions of the House of Commons in Ottawa, namely June 3, 1969 and April 19, 1983. In both of those cases, the Speaker considered the distinction between matters of privilege and matters strictly political or within the executive power in the case of an alleged impropriety.

The makeup of Cabinet and matters surrounding a Member's performance in Cabinet are political questions which are not properly questions of privilege. Other opportunities exist for the discussion and debate of such matters.

The material tabled by the Member, and the argument presented does not indicate to the Chair any basis on which a prima facie case of breach of privilege can be made.

Emery Barnes, Speaker

And then the House adjourned at 11.59 a.m.

Tuesday, April 19, 1994

Two o'clock p.m.

Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."

Mr. Mitchell sought leave to move a motion.

Leave was not granted.

By leave, Mr. Mitchell tabled a copy of a letter to the Commissioner of Conflict of Interest.

The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."

43  The Hon. M. F. Harcourt moved--

Be it resolved that this House condemns the Federal Liberal Government's Bill C-18 which shortchanges British Columbia of two seats in the House of Commons and that this House calls upon the Senate to reject this unfair legislation.

A debate arose.

The debate continued.

On the motion of Mr. Mitchell that the question be now put pursuant to Standing Order 46, the House divided.

Motion negatived on the following division:

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

The Hon. G. Clark advised that the House will sit Wednesday, pursuant to Standing Order 2 (2).

And then the House adjourned at 6.06 p.m.

EMERY BARNES, Speaker

NOTICE OF MOTIONS

Wednesday, April 20th

Mr. Symons to introduce a Bill intituled Uranium Moratorium Act.

44  Mr. Symons to move--

Be it resolved that Standing Order 81 of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended to read:

Every Bill shall receive three readings, on different days, prior to being passed. After first reading, there shall be a minimum of three sitting days before second reading. After the second reading, it shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day. Notwithstanding the above, on urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.

 

45  Mr. Symons to move--

Be it resolved that this Legislature urge the Government of Canada to spend at least 50% of the money collected through Federal taxes on automotive fuels on highways in the Province of origin.

 

46  Mr. Symons to move--

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia reaffirm its request to the Government of Canada to conduct a full public environmental review of the dangers involved by the presence of nuclear- weaponed and nuclear-powered vessels in British Columbia's harbours and waterways.

Thursday, April 21st

Ms. Tyabji to introduce a Bill intituled Admissible Evidence Act.

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

Thursday, April 21st

38  Mr. Chisholm to ask the Hon. the Premier the following questions:

1. Does the government not feel that the Kemano Completion Project jeopardizes the Fraser River, the last great salmon-spawning river on the entire West Coast?

2. Is the government intending to extend the B.C. Utilities Commission Hearings on the Kemano Completion Project to ensure B.C.'s commercial pacific salmon fishermen have a viable future?

3. How much funding is the government providing to groups such as Sports Fishermen and Aboriginal People who are demanding accountability for the Fraser River Fishery at the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings?

4. Is it the intention of the government to continue providing funding to groups such as Sport Fishermen and Aboriginal People who are demanding accountability for the Fraser River at the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings?

5. Will the government commit to expanding the terms of reference for the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings in order to ensure that Department of Fisheries documents, which detail the impact of reduced water flows on the Nechako and at Hells Gate, receive a thorough public review?

 

39  Mr. Chisholm to ask the Hon. the Attorney General the following questions:

1. Did the Rankin Commission on compensation to Alcan in the event the Kemano Completion Project is scrapped consider the terms of the original 1950 settlement agreement before coming up with a compensation figure of $500 million?

2. How did the Rankin Commission arrive at the figure of $500 million in compensation that Alcan is to receive in the event the Kemano Completion Project is scrapped?

3. What constitutes this proposed figure of $500 million in compensation that Alcan is to receive in the event the Kemano Completion Project is scrapped?

4. Does Alcan have a clear legal right to compensation if the B.C. Utilities Commission orders the Project be subjected to a full environmental review?

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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