1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
No. 148
OF THE
Tuesday, April 6, 1999
Two o'clock p.m.
Prayers by Mr. Janssen.
Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."
The Hon. G. Mann Brewin (Speaker) tabled the following documents:
Ombudsman Annual Report, 1998; and
Auditor General 1998/99: Report 5 -- Protecting Drinking Water Sources.
The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."
Bill (No. 51) intituled Nisga'a Final Agreement Act was again committed.
The Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
Bill to be considered at the next sitting.
The Hon. J. MacPhail tabled written representations with regard to the matters of privilege raised on March 29, 1999.
The Speaker delivered her reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
On Monday, March 29, 1999, the Honourable Member for Richmond-Steveston informed the House of his intention to move an adjournment motion under Standing Order 35 to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, that this House express its confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the RCMP and the judiciary, having regard to certain recent statements by members of the Government and prominent members of the NDP concerning the RCMP.
The long established practice in this House is for the Member seeking leave to move an adjournment motion under Standing Order 35 to rise in his/her place, state the matter and hand the statement to the Speaker. However, in this instance, Hansard clearly shows that the Honourable Member rose and moved the motion to adjourn the House before making a statement, contrary to the express provisions of Standing Order 35.
On this ground alone, the motion appears to the Chair to be out of order, but in view of the seriousness of the allegations, further comment is warranted.
In dealing with applications under Standing Order 35, the Chair must take into account the wording of the standing order as well as other considerations established through practice.
Specifically, the matter must meet the test of urgency and public importance such that public interest would suffer if usual House business were not set aside to give the matter immediate attention. It has been stated many times that it is the urgency of debate that is paramount, not the urgency of the matter. The words urgent public importance in Standing Order 35 suggest a sudden and unexpected occurrence -- hence, the presence of the essential element of suddenness.
The Chair is sensitive to the importance of the matter which the Member raises. Belief and full confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary is of course one of the great traditions of the justice system within our democracy.
The Member submits that the statements in question raise the spectre of political intimidation of an on-going investigation. On this issue, I remind Members that the Attorney-General has stated in the House the Government's position in this regard and I quote from Hansard of Monday, March 29 last: ". . .ministers of the Crown ought not and must not criticize the law enforcement agencies of the province. . ."
The Chair must also be satisfied that ordinary parliamentary opportunities will not occur shortly or in reasonable time to address the matter in the House. It is my opinion that there are other reasonable opportunities for debating the independence of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system. The estimates, including the Attorney-General estimates, having been referred to Committee of Supply provide a venue which traditionally affords Members an opportunity to address questions such as that raised by the Member. The debate on the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair" provides another opportunity to canvass the matter.
I have also pointed out that during Oral Question Period on March 29, a very clear statement on this matter was made by the Attorney-General.
Therefore, on both technical and substantive grounds, the Member's application cannot succeed.
Gretchen Mann Brewin, Speaker
And then the House adjourned at 5.54 p.m.
GRETCHEN MANN BREWIN, Speaker
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1999: Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada