[ Progress of Bills . . . ]

Ten o'clock a.m.

Prayers by Mr. Hartley.

Mr. Masi presented a petition regarding Burns Bog.

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. Penner, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

And then the House adjourned at 11.59 a.m.

Thursday, April 2, 1998

Two o'clock p.m.

Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."

By leave, Mr. Gingell tabled a copy of a table comparing spreads on Federal and Provincial bonds.

Mr. Plant presented a petition relating to proposed changes to the Human Rights Code.

The Speaker delivered her reserved decision as follows:

Honourable Members:

On March 26, 1998, the Honourable Member for Matsqui rose reserving his right to raise a matter of privilege, and on March 27th stated his matter of privilege and filed certain exhibits. Let me say here, that the Honourable Member provided the Chair with the text of his proposed remarks, and in response to a request from the Chair summarized his presentation in accordance with the established practice in this House.

Following the Member's presentation, the Government House Leader stated her view of the matter of privilege, followed by remarks from the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I might add at this point that the Honourable Opposition House Leader in his remarks, in referring to the alleged conversations, stated as follows:

"Well Honourable Speaker, it will be up to you to decide whether or not that kind of thing determines a threat."

The Speaker has to determine firstly, whether or not the conversation amounted to a threat and secondly, whether or not the threat, if established, gives rise to a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

On Monday, March 30, 1998, the Honourable Member for Surrey-Whalley advised the House that she wished to reserve her right to make a personal statement, and made a statement to the House the following afternoon, Tuesday, March 31st.

I wish to state that in the Chair's opinion, the Member for Surrey-Whalley was entitled to make a personal statement as she was directly and substantially implicated in the statement made by the Member for Matsqui on the previous Friday.

It is established practice in this House and other Commonwealth Parliaments that Members, within strict guidelines, are permitted to make statements to the House on matters which they are personally implicated. I am further persuaded that the Member for Surrey-Whalley was entitled to have time to examine the material filed by the Member for Matsqui with a view to giving her version of the facts alleged.

I emphasize at this point that the latitude provided in a personal statement does not permit a Member to re-argue the technical merits of the matter of privilege, but must confine themselves to his or her version of the facts and also to permit that Member, where appropriate, to offer an apology.

The definitive guideline on personal statements is contained in the 22nd Edition of Erskine May at page 312, and I quote in part as follows:

"Personal statements

In regard to the explanation of personal matters, the House is usually indulgent, and will permit a statement of that character -- also referred to as personal explanations -- to be made without any question being before the House provided that the Speaker has been informed of what the Member proposes to say, and has given leave. Because the practice of the House is not to permit such statements to be subject to intervention or debate, the precise contents of the proposed statement are submitted in advance to the Speaker to ensure that they are appropriate. The Member granted the privilege of making such a statement may not therefore depart from the agreed text."

In this case, however, the Member for Surrey-Whalley departed from the text accepted by the Speaker.

I have, however, taken into account her version of the conversation as well as the version of the Member for Matsqui in coming to my conclusions on this matter.

Looking at both versions of the conversation, I have difficulty accepting the argument advanced by the Member for Matsqui that he felt genuinely threatened by either version of the conversation. I feel confident that the Member was aware that the jurisdiction to amend funding formulas remained at all times in the Legislative Assembly Management Committee and not with the Member for Surrey- Whalley.

The Member for Matsqui acknowledged, in his remarks to the House on March 31st, that the Member for Surrey-Whalley had tried to apologize to him.

It is also the Chair's view that the interpretation of such conversations is highly subjective. Based on the evidence before me and the numerous decisions of this House on matters of privilege, it is the Chair's view that the Member has not established a prima facie case of privilege which would entitle him to move the tendered motion.

With the indulgence of the House, I wish to make a further observation.

The subject matter of the conversation in this matter centered around Caucus funding, and it is evident to the Chair that the authority to determine this and related matters, rests squarely with the Legislative Assembly Management Committee under and by virtue of section 3 of the enabling statute. Accordingly, the alleged discussions brought to this House should properly be aired in that Committee. I draw an analogy between the longstanding rule that matters arising in a Select Standing Committee should be settled in the Committee, and matters within the purview of a statutory Committee, should likewise be settled in that Committee.

Representations, arguments and disagreements occurring in Committees, or disagreements between Members of a Committee occurring elsewhere, are not a proper subject matter to be brought to the floor of this House, either by way of points of order or matters of privilege.

Gretchen Mann Brewin, Speaker

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 the Hon. M. Farnworth, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

And then the House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.

GRETCHEN MANN BREWIN, Speaker