No. 18
TWO O'CLOCK P.M.
Prayers by Mr. Thorpe.The Hon. G. Clark (Premier) made a ministerial statement regarding the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government, with regard to management of the Pacific Salmon Fishery.
Mr. Campbell made a statement.
By leave, Mr. G. F. Wilson made a statement.
By leave, Mr. Weisgerber made a statement.
Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."
The Hon. A. Petter (Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations) tabled the following:
By leave, the Hon. A. Petter (Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations) moved --
That the following documents be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."
Pursuant to Order, the House resumed the adjourned debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the Session.
The debate continued.
On the motion of Mr. Krueger, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.
On the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 6) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996, a debate arose.
Bill (No. 6) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996, was read a third time and passed.
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
On July 2nd, the Member for Delta South rose in his place and indicated to the Chair that he wished to reserve his right to raise a matter of privilege. On July 9th, he raised his matter of privilege of which he had given notice, namely, that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, and other Members on the Government side of the House, had deliberately misled the House with respect to what has been described as a "balanced budget".
First, with respect to the verbal notice given on July 2nd, I wish to make one or two observations. The purpose of giving verbal notice is to reserve one's right to raise a matter of privilege by giving notice, without further comment, at the earliest possible opportunity where it may be necessary to make further inquiries. I am satisfied in this case that the Member did give notice at the earliest possible opportunity. However, I feel it is important to examine the content of the notice. The Member was recognized and thereafter proceeded to make a statement. The statement, however, contained argument and charges of wrongdoing, which the Chair considers inappropriate when one rises to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege. My comments apply equally to the statement by the Member for Vancouver-Fraserview on July 12, 1996.
With respect to the raising of the matter of privilege itself on July 9th, I wish to comment on the process adopted by the Member. The Member was recognized and proceeded to present his case, mixing argument with fact while reading from his written statement. I cautioned the Member to avoid argument and to present facts to the House, and subsequently advised the Member that the Chair had heard sufficient material to consider the case, although I allowed him to file the complete written statement which has been considered in support of his application. I would refer all Honourable Members to the Speaker's decision of July 21, 1993, to be found at page 193 of the Journals, wherein the Chair remarked as follows:
"The Chair wishes to comment briefly on the manner in which the matter of privilege was raised in the House. Our guidelines are stated at p. 36 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia (2nd edition) and one of the essential elements required is 'a brief written statement of the matter, which the Member reads to the House'. This statement is intended to inform the House of the facts on which the matter is based, and in addition, any applicable authorities which may be of assistance to the Chair. In this instance, regrettably the Chair could not allow the completion of the statement in that several parts of the statement imported argument and conclusions. The Chair, however, has had the full text of the Honourable Member's statement and has considered all the relevant submissions therein."It appears to the Chair that the method of presentation in this case was similar to that used on July 21, 1993, and accordingly the decision of the Speaker on that day is particularly relevant. I have adopted those reasons as applicable for the stating of a matter of privilege in this House. The opportunity for argument and debate occurs in the event the Chair finds a prima facie case.
Dealing with the present matter, the Opposition House Leader, upon objection being taken, referred the Chair to two matters of privilege raised in a previous Parliament in which lengthy argument was used during presentation. In those instances, objection was not raised and the Speaker did not actively intervene. It is the view of the Chair that the proper practice was affirmed as a precedent of this House by the Speaker's decision of July 21, 1993, and that decision clearly takes precedence. Improprieties recorded in Hansard on July 11, 1990 and March 11, 1991 which do not comply with the rules of the House cannot set a precedent. For the guidance of Members, there are many examples of privilege being presented for consideration by the Chair in accordance with the correct practices of Parliament. (See B.C. Hansard February 23, 1984; May 1, 1984 and March 19, 1986.)
I want now to turn to the merits of this matter and wish to state that I have examined all the material filed by the Member for Delta South as well as components of Hansard, wherein the views of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations were expressed during the previous week.
The Member for Delta South alleges that certain Government Members made statements during 1995 and 1996 in which they characterized the budget of that year as being a "balanced budget". Their viewpoints were actively presented in debate -- and were actively opposed by Members of the Opposition. The Honourable Member making this application presented Hansard excerpts from 1995, page 1 of the budget speech given by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations in April 1996 when presenting the budget prior to the election, and he also presented page 1 of the statement by the current Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations when presenting the budget in July of 1996. Finally, he tabled information that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations made a statement to a member of the press on June 28th, that revenue forecasts would be less than anticipated and stated in the budget. Based upon this evidence, the Member argues that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations deliberately misled the House in presenting the budget on June 26th, by not advising the House that a forecast indicated that the budget would not be a surplus budget.
When a matter is raised by a Member and characterized as a breach of privilege, the Chair has the duty to consider whether a prima facie case has been made based upon the information provided by the Member, so that the normal business of the House may be set aside to debate the matter. If a prima facie case is found, then the matter is debated and dealt with accordingly. I have before me the form of the motion which the Member tendered, the statement provided by the Member, the Member's oral argument (the first part of the statement) and exhibits attached to the statement. In addition, I have reviewed Hansard for the previous two weeks and examined questions and answers presented in the House on the same issue which may further bear on the case at hand.
It is clear from the material tendered and the Hansard transcript that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and the Member for Delta South disagree in their characterization of the budget, a normal function of debate. In addition, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and the Member for Delta South disagree with respect to their characterizations of the nature of economic forecasting and its relationship to the budget. In none of the material can I find evidence that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations deliberately misled the House. In order to accept the argument of the Member for Delta South, one would have to arrive at the conclusion that the Minister had deliberately misled the House. However, the evidence provided to the Chair, while it indicates a disagreement amongst Members, does not indicate a deliberate intention to mislead. In order to find a prima facie case it would be necessary for the presentation to have included some evidence which would displace the word of an Honourable Member, and that evidence is lacking.
Because of the importance of this matter, the Chair wishes to make some further observations with respect to quoted statements from the Speech from the Throne and from the June 1996 budget, both referred to by the Member for Delta South. The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations stated in the House that he did not receive confirmed and verified information on budgetary forecasts until the Friday (June 28, 1996) following the Speech from the Throne and the Budget Address. He further stated that he released the information the day he received it. The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations said in the House on Tuesday, July 2, 1996, and I quote:
"The moment I had reliable information to bring before this House . . . I brought it before the public and before this House. . . . On Friday, I was informed that, as a result of further review, those statements have been verified, and at that moment I made the information public. I stand by that statement because it happens to be the truth."It is well established practice that a Member's word will be accepted in the House -- I refer Members to Beauchesne's 6th edition at citation 494, and I quote:
"494. It has been ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted."Unless there is evidence that a Member has deliberately misled the House, a prima facie case cannot be established. The Chair's examination of the Hansard report and of the Honourable Member's submission leads to the conclusion that this is a question that falls into the broad category of a dispute as to allegation of facts, which, as stated in Beauchesne's 4th edition at citation 113, "does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." The allegations against Members of the former Parliament fall into the same category.
Having considered the Honourable Member's submission, the relevant Hansard reports and precedents, the Chair cannot find, prima facie, that the House was in fact deliberately misled. Therefore, the application must fail.
DALE LOVICK, Speaker
And then the House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.
DALE LOVICK, Speaker
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee, the Committee be empowered: