1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

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

Nos. 36 and 37

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

Thursday, April 21, 1994

Ten o'clock a.m.

Prayers by Mr. Weisgerber.

The Hon. P. Ramsey (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors) tabled the Annual Report for the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, 1992/1993.

Mr. Speaker delivered his reserved opinions as follows:

Honourable Members:

On Monday last the Honourable Member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi sought to move an adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent and public importance, namely, alleged interference by the Premier and by a Minister with the work of the Special Prosecutor named to investigate matters surrounding an affidavit filed by the Attorney General.

I consider such allegations relating to the conduct of Members as matters of grave concern.

Standing Order 35 is a vehicle by which the House may set aside its usual business to debate a matter that is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.

In determining whether the matter should be given immediate attention, the Chair takes into account the wording of Standing Order 35, as well as other considerations established through practice.

The Chair also weighs the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means.

With respect to other reasonable opportunity for debate, I remind Honourable Members, that the Estimates, including the Attorney General's Estimates, having been referred by order of the House, are currently before the Committee of Supply, a venue which traditionally affords Members an opportunity to address questions such as that raised by the Honourable Member.

I would also point out that the matters raised by the Honourable Member have been the subject of questions during successive periods of "Oral Questions by Members" over the past week, and may continue to be so, again providing a further opportunity for raising the matter.

I now wish to turn my attention to another issue relating directly to the allegations that a Minister interfered with the investigations of a special prosecutor.

In my view, the allegation is a matter which relates to the conduct of a Member and as such, the authorities clearly indicate that the issue should be raised by substantive motion.

The discussion which could ensue under the adjournment motion for an emergency debate must not raise any matter which can only be debated on Motions under Notice.

On the application of Standing Orders dealing with emergency debates, I refer Honourable Members to Beauchesne's, 6th edition at citation 395:

"The conduct of a Member ought not to be the subject of debate under this Standing Order. If a Member's conduct is to be examined, it should be done on the basis of a substantive motion, of which notice is required, drawn in terms which clearly state a charge of wrongdoing."

I also refer Honourable Members to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 20th edition at page 430:

"Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon . . . Members of either House."

I further urge Members to consult the Debates of the House of Commons in Ottawa, March 25, 1971, at page 4590, where the Speaker rejected an application for leave to adjourn on the grounds that the matter involved related to the conduct of a Minister and was a substantive matter which could only be debated on a distinct Motion under Notice.

For the above reasons, I cannot find that a genuine "urgency of debate" has been established for the purpose of Standing Order 35 and hence the application must fail.

Emery Barnes, Speaker

Honourable Members:

On Monday last, the Honourable Member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove sought to move an adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent and public importance, namely, certain events which occurred in Committee of Supply and the ramifications thereof on the estimates process.

The Chair was notified in advance of this request, a courtesy for which I thank the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member's application was the second matter raised under Standing Order 35 during the same sitting last Monday, second to that raised by the Honourable Member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I refer the Honourable Member to Standing Order 35 (10) (a) of this House:

"35 (10) The right to move the adjournment of the House under this Standing Order is subject to the following restrictions:

(a) not more than one such motion may be made at the same sitting;"

It is my opinion that the matter raised does not satisfy the requirements of Standing Order 35 (10) (a) as leave for such a motion of adjournment under this Standing Order was already sought by another Member during the same sitting.

When there is more than one application for leave in the same sitting, the Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 35 (10) (a), can only entertain one such request and must give priority to the Member who first catches the Speaker's eye.

For this reason, Standing Order 35 (10) (a) disallows the Honourable Member's application.

While this finding effectively disposes of the Member's application, in these particular circumstances, I have considered the Honourable Member's statement of the matter which, in his opinion, justifies an emergency debate.

The Member referred to the need for "urgent and immediate address" in the House of issues under the responsibility of the Attorney General, which issues, in the Member's opinion, will no longer be the subject of debate because of, and here again I quote the Member's words "the inability of Members to debate those issues, due to the sudden termination of the estimates."

In his presentation of the matter, the Honourable Member referred to a decision of the Committee of Supply last Friday, April 15, 1994, to rise and report progress on the deliberations of the Attorney General's estimates and he concluded from the debate surrounding this motion that the Government had "terminated" the debate on the Attorney General's estimates.

It is not the Speaker's intention, nor is it his role, to discuss the rationale behind decisions of Committees of this House.

I refer Members to Beauchesne's, 6th edition, citation 478:

"The proceedings of a committee may not be referred to in debate before they have been laid upon the Table."

It is a well established practice that within their terms of reference, Committees have total independence in their deliberations and decisions. Proceedings in Committee of Supply and indeed in any other Committee of this House cannot be brought into consideration or debate in the House except by way of a report from a Committee. I remind Members that the Committee of Supply has not presented a substantive report to the House during the current session.

There are a number of authorities which support the independence of Committees, the first of which is our own Standing Order 71 (1):

". . . Procedural matters arising in Committee shall be decided in Committee."

I further refer Members to Beauchesne's, 6th edition, citation 760 (3):

"The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure."

Members may also wish to consult Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, page 618 and British Columbia Journals, February 14, 1968, page 52 on the same subject.

I also wish to remind Members that the Government does have unfettered discretion in calling Government business, both in the House and in Committee of Supply, a practice which is followed in the United Kingdom and in Ottawa.

Hence, it would be difficult to justify an emergency debate predicated on an alleged Government initiative in the Committee of Supply, based, in any event, on an absolute right and power which the Government exercises every day without provoking the need for emergency debates on other matters not before the House.

On technical grounds and for the substantive reasons outlined above, I find that the matter raised by the Honourable Member cannot succeed.

Emery Barnes, Speaker

The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."

Order for Committee of Supply called.

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of Supply (estimates of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services).

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.

And then the House adjourned at 11.58 a.m.

Thursday, April 21, 1994

Two o'clock p.m.

On the motion of Mr. Symons, Bill (No. M 215) intituled Uranium Moratorium Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."

The Hon. M. F. Harcourt (Premier) made a ministerial statement regarding the Federal Liberal Government's social security reform.

Mr. Gingell made a statement.

The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."

Order for Committee of Supply called.

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of Supply (estimates of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services).

(In the House)

The House resumed the adjourned debate on Motion 43: "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."

The debate continued.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to nemine contradicente on the following division.

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 Multicultarlism 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.

And then the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.

EMERY BARNES, Speaker

MEETINGS OF COMMITTEES

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

The Committee will meet at 11 o'clock a.m. on Thursday, April 28, in the Oak Room (Room 303).
Business: Convening and Law Clerk's Report on Private Bills.

U. Dosanjh, Convener

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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