[ Progress of Bills . . . ]

Two o'clock p.m.

Prayers by Mr. Krueger.

The Hon. J. MacPhail (Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations) presented to the Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:

Garde B. Gardom, Q.C.
Lieutenant Governor

The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 41) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Government House,
June 25, 1998

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Bill 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. U. Dosanjh (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Immigration) tabled the following:

Draft Response of the Legislative Assembly to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee Report;

Criminal Injury Compensation Program of British Columbia Report, 1997; and

Report on Multiculturalism, 1996-1997.

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 Finance and Corporate Relations with respect to Vote No. 41).

  50   The Hon. J. MacPhail moved--

That the order for the adjourned debate on Second Reading of Bill (No. 26), Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998 be reinstated to the Orders of the Day.

The Speaker made the following statement:

Honourable Members:

The procedure that the House is presently embarked upon is somewhat novel to this House, and a comment on the procedure may be of assistance to Honourable Members.

Members will be aware that our Standing Order No. 1 refers us to the practice of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in the absence of express provision in our own Standing Orders or precedents from this Assembly. Accordingly, extensive reference has been made to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.

The House is dealing with the broad category of business generally known as "dropped orders" and the procedures to be followed arising from a dropped order are outlined in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition at page 321.

The authority quoted states, in part, as follows:

"A dropped Government order may be reinstated for the day following that on which the unexpected adjournment takes place by means of a motion to that effect appearing on that day's Order Paper in the name of a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business. The dropped order itself appears printed in italics either at the head of the list of orders of the day or at the place where the Government wishes it to be taken."

It is, therefore, the Chair's view that the procedures adopted consequent upon the dropped government order have been correct, in that notice of motion to reinstate has been given and appears on today's Orders as Notice on Motion No. 50.

The major question that remains unanswered is whether or not the government motion to reinstate Bill (No. 26) to its former position on Orders of the Day, is a debatable motion.

The Chair is of the view that the motion in question is debatable, but only within the confines of the scope of debate applicable to a "business" or "procedural" motion. Such motions relate to the business of the House and are described at page 315 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May.

The scope of debate on a business or procedural motion does not extend to permit an examination in detail of the subject matter of the motion, but rather directs itself as to the reasons, pro and con, for reinstatement of the order for the adjourned debate on second reading of the bill.

I further refer to Erskine May's 22nd edition at page 321, where discussing such motions it states:

"If debate occurs on such a motion, it must be strictly limited to the precise object of the motion."

I draw an analogy between this motion before the House and a motion to recommit a bill to a Committee of the Whole House, in part or in whole, after the bill has been reported to the House from a Committee of the Whole. In the circumstances, the Speaker under the United Kingdom practice permits a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for recommittal to the member who moves the motion, and from a member who opposes the motion, after which explanations the Speaker puts the question on the motion without further debate. This United Kingdom practice has now been codified in their Standing Orders and is discussed in the above referred edition of Erskine May at page 542.

In this House, the bill which the government seeks to restore to the Order Paper is presently at the stage of adjourned debate on second reading. The Chair notes that many Members have not yet exercised their right to speak on the motion for second reading, nor have any of the standard amendments to this motion been moved, thereby providing ample opportunity to speak to the substance of the bill in question.

It is, therefore, the Chair's view that the motion in question cannot be distinguished from any other procedural motion and is debatable only to the extent of the mechanics of reinstatement. The merit of the bill may be fully canvassed when, and if, the motion for reinstatement passes.

Gretchen Mann Brewin, Speaker

By leave, Mr. Farrell-Collins tabled documents.

The debate continued.

On the motion of Mr. Plant, the debate was adjourned until later today.

(In Committee -- Section A)