2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Nos. 35 and 36
OF THE
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Ten o'clock a.m.
Prayers by Mr. K. Stewart.
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
On February 10th, Opening day, the Leader of the Opposition gave notice that she would raise three matters of privilege. The next day she raised a matter of privilege, namely that the Minister of Finance had been in contempt of the House by announcing and implementing a change to the rate of tobacco tax prior to the introduction of enabling legislation. I have considered her submission and also the response of the Minister given March 3rd with great care, and I have examined the cases referred to in both submissions together with all supporting documentation.
The Minister of Finance raised a procedural objection that the matter had not been raised at the earliest opportunity. He argued that as the announcement had been made in December 2003 while the House was adjourned, that the earliest opportunity would have been the morning of February 10th when the House was recalled by the Lieutenant Governor for prorogation.
A review of the Journals of the House will indicate that notice of matters of privilege has been given on Prorogation day and also on Opening day, even though the House met in the morning for prorogation and the afternoon for opening. On April 5, 1990, notice was given on Prorogation day and Speaker Rogers advised as follows:
"Mr. Speaker stated that while matters of privilege are brought forward on the first available occasion, all that is permitted on a day of formalities is that the matter of privilege be brought to his attention to preserve the Member's right and thereafter, on the first available day, the matter of privilege may be fully stated.
"Mr. Speaker referred honourable members to a decision of Mr. Speaker Dowding and further informed the Member that the first available opportunity under normal proceedings would be when the House meets the following day."
One high profile privilege case in this House on March 3, 1980 (the Nielsen case) involved the raising of the matter the day after Opening day. These cases are not in conflict with the decision of Speaker Schroeder, given the 25th and 26th day of November 1982, and cited by the Minister of Finance, but rather constitute an exception to the application of the rule, due to the fact that Prorogation and Opening day are pro forma sittings which result from the exercise of the Royal prerogative to summon the House.
Speaker Rogers' decision of April 10, 1990, makes it clear that the announcement outside the House of pending legislation does not amount to a breach of privilege but may, according to the nature of the announcement, involve a contempt of the House. In that decision, the Speaker stated, in part, as follows:
"It is apparent, however, that Mr. Speaker Fraser, in the course of his ruling of October 10th last, did deliver a stern warning that the general public must not be given any impression that proposed changes to the taxation system were a fait accompli and that parliament, in fact, had no role to play in examining and approving any proposed changes. To give such an impression, Mr. Speaker Fraser said, may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public. With that warning, I am in complete agreement, and would deprecate any action that fairly could be seen to derogate from the role of parliament."
I commend this decision to all members of the House -- see BC Journals, 4th Session, 1990-91, p. 16.
I have reviewed the press release and tax circular #049 which were tabled by the Minister of Finance. Both documents make it clear that the legislative measures required to implement the tax rate increase are proposed, i.e., they will be presented at the next session of the House and be retrospective to the extent necessary. A review of finance and taxation bills presented to and passed by the House over many years, indicates that a large number of them have retrospective application either to the date of introduction or an earlier date where required.
The Minister of Finance has advised the House that the questioned tax will be debated by the Legislature and in fact it appears that the necessary amendments received 1st Reading on February 17th, in keeping with the undertaking given as part of the announcement of the tax in December 2003. The House has not been denied the opportunity to debate this tax measure, notwithstanding the legislation will be (retrospective) to the dates mentioned in the proposed amendment. Absent the undertaking to "introduce legislation to support this change at the earliest opportunity" the situation would be quite different.
The device of retrospective legislation is not uncommon in Commonwealth parliaments and after a careful examination of the authorities and Speakers' decisions in this House and elsewhere I am persuaded that the transaction relating to the Tobacco Tax Act does not constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House.
I do, however, agree with the observation of Speaker Fraser that proposed changes to the taxation system, absent statutory authority or an opportunity to debate the matter in this House would be unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy.
CLAUDE RICHMOND, Speaker
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
The Leader of the Opposition raised a matter of privilege on February 16. This was the second of three matters of which notice was given on the afternoon of February 10, Opening Day. This particular matter involves statements attributed to the Member for Surrey-White Rock, while he was serving as Minister of Children and Family Development.
During Estimates debate on March 24, 2003, the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Minister about the appointments of interim Chief Executive Officers of the regional authorities, aboriginal interim authorities and, finally, the Interim Authority for Community Living BC. The Leader of the Opposition contends that when the former Minister responded with respect to the Interim Community Living Authority BC, he misled the House by stating:
"Currently the senior government representative is Elaine Murray. They will be going through a selection process sometime in the next number of months."
The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the Member misled the House by not addressing the role played by Mr. Doug Walls in the Interim Authority and thereby hindered the effective functioning of the House and the Opposition.
In support of her claim, the Leader of the Opposition read from and submitted the following documentation:
On March 11, the Member for Surrey-White Rock responded to the matter of privilege. In his submission, he reiterated the Government House Leader's objections of March 3 that the Leader of the Opposition erred in not reserving her right to raise the matters at the earliest opportunity, namely, the morning of February 10.
With respect to the matter of privilege, the Member for Surrey-White Rock argued that his statement with respect to the duties of Ms. Murray was, in fact, accurate. He noted that at the time Mr. Walls held the official title of "Senior Consultant, Planning and Development", although he had taken on additional responsibilities as Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Interim Authority.
In his submission, the Member for Surrey-White Rock acknowledged "during the formational period of Community Living BC there was occasionally a lack of clarity concerning the position of interim CEO." Nevertheless, the Member submitted that he acted with the best information available to him, and that his statements were accurate, and certainly not deliberately misleading. In support of his presentation, the Member also submitted documentation, including related correspondence, an Interim Authority Transitional Organization Chart, and Minutes of the Interim Authority Board Meetings.
I also note that, in the event that his words were misinterpreted or led to confusion, the Member for Surrey-White Rock offered an apology to all Members of this House.
I have carefully reviewed the arguments of both Honourable Members and I wish to thank them both for their detailed submissions, which were of considerable assistance to me.
Firstly, I will address the objection by the Member for Surrey-White Rock that the Leader of the Opposition did not raise the matter at the earliest opportunity. As noted in my earlier decision (on the first matter of privilege raised on February 10), the Leader of the Opposition was within the rules of the House when she reserved her right to raise the matters of privilege on the afternoon of February 10, due to the fact that both the morning and afternoon proceedings that day resulted from the exercise of the Royal prerogative of the Crown to summon the House.
Secondly, I will address the matter of privilege put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The role of the Chair is to determine, prima facie, not whether the House was misled in some way, but whether or not it was deliberately misled by statements made in the House. Upon reviewing the presentations and submissions of both Members, the Chair finds that the Leader of the Opposition's complaint is founded on an allegation of a misleading answer and, to some degree, a dispute as to allegations of facts between honourable members.
It has been well documented in the Journals of this House (June 8, 1982, May 5, 1988 and April 19, 1999) and in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at p. 224 that an allegation of a misleading answer does not constitute a valid question of privilege, unless there is clear evidence a member has deliberately done so. Similarly, a dispute as to allegations of fact -- such as the contradictory documentary evidence with respect to the role of Mr. Walls -- does not amount to a matter of privilege. Disputes as to allegations of facts are clearly described in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, 3rd edition, p. 295.
In closing, the two submissions regarding the debate of March 24, 2003, cannot and do not lead to a conclusion that the Member for Surrey-White Rock deliberately misled the House, and therefore I do not find a prima facie case of privilege.
CLAUDE RICHMOND, Speaker
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
Last February 18, 2004, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege stating that a newspaper report in the Powell River Peak of December 23, 2003, quoted the Solicitor General as making statements that contradicted earlier statements he made in the House that the Government had no involvement in operational decisions on lottery facilities. Specifically, the Leader of the Opposition stated that the Powell River Peak "identified the Solicitor General as seeking out venues for the installation of slot machines."
Through authorities which she quoted, the Leader of the Opposition indirectly alleged that the Minister "knowingly misled Parliament", and further alleged that the Minister's statements in the House amounted to "a prima facie case of contempt."
Subsequently, the Solicitor General responded in the House to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Chair has reviewed the material tendered by the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister's statement.
In his response, the Solicitor General said in the House that "he was not seeking specific venues for slot machines" but, in explaining the application process for slot machines to the local member, the Minister inquired if the local community had expressed an interest in slot machines. He added that "at no time did I offer to direct the BC Lottery Corporation to place slot machines in a particular community."
Breaches of privilege involve the protection of Members from impediments to their functioning as Members of the House, whereas contempts of the House are, broadly speaking, offenses against the dignity and the authority of the House itself. The strict definition of privilege or contempt cannot be expanded to include controversies as to facts, opinions, conclusions on the interpretation of newspaper articles or reports. The point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is much more a matter of debate than it is one of privilege or contempt.
Members will know that it has been a long-standing practice in this House that an Honourable Member's statement is accepted by the House in the absence of indisputable evidence to the contrary. This practice is well illustrated in the decision of Speaker Schroeder of April 13, 1982, which may be found in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia at pages 296-297.
Indeed, there must be some prima facie evidence that the Solicitor General deliberately misled the House. This requirement of evidence that the House has been "deliberately misled" is articulated within Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, at p. 111 and Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at p. 224. In this case, there is no such evidence in possession of the Chair.
The Leader of the Opposition has not established a sufficient foundation upon which to make a prima facie finding that the House was in fact deliberately misled. Accordingly, the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition falls in the category of a case where there is a dispute of facts and such dispute ought not to form the basis of a complaint of a breach of privilege or contempt. The application accordingly fails.
CLAUDE RICHMOND, 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.
Bill (No. 2) intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act was read a third time and passed.
Bill (No. 4) intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act was again committed, reported complete with amendment, and by leave, read a third time and passed.
Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section B of Committee of Supply.
(In Committee -- Section B)
Section B of Committee of Supply reported progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Report to be considered at the next sitting.
Committee to sit again at the next sitting.
(In Committee -- Section A)
Section A of Committee of Supply reported progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
Report to be considered at the next sitting.
Committee to sit again at the next sitting.
And then the House adjourned at 11.55 a.m.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Two o'clock p.m.
The Hon. G. Collins (Minister of Finance) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Iona Campagnolo
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 21) intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2004 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
March 22, 2004.
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.
The Hon. G. Plant (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Iona Campagnolo
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 18) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
March 18, 2004.
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.
The Hon. B. Barisoff (Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Iona Campagnolo
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 16) intituled Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
March 17, 2004.
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.
The Hon. M. Coell (Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Iona Campagnolo
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 20) intituled Railway Safety Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
March 22, 2004.
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 "Members' Statements."
Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."
Mr. Krueger presented a petition regarding the Trans-Canada Highway between Pritchard and Chase.
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.
The Hon. G. Collins (Minister of Finance) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Iona Campagnolo
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Supplementary Estimates No. 4 -- Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2004 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
March 23, 2004.
Ordered, that the Message, and the Supplementary Estimates accompanying same, be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Order for Committee of Supply called.
(In Committee -- Section B)
16 (S). Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $72,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, Ministry Operations, to 31st March, 2004.
Section B of Committee of Supply reported the Resolution under the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.
Report to be considered forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. G. Collins (Minister of Finance) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Iona Campagnolo
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 22) intituled Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4) and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
March 22, 2004.
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Bill permitted to be advanced all stages this day.
Bill (No. 22) was read a second time.
On the motion of the Hon. G. Collins, Bill (No. 22) was referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.
Bill (No. 22) was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
The Hon. G. Collins (Minister of Finance) presented to the Speaker a Message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Iona Campagnolo
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 23) intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
March 22, 2004.
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.
On the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 5) intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004, a debate arose.
Bill (No. 5) read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.
On the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 6) intituled Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, a debate arose.
The debate continued.
The House divided.
Motion agreed to on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 60 |
|||
|
Falcon |
Lee Thorpe Murray Plant Collins Clark Bond Christensen Abbott Neufeld Coleman Penner Cobb Jarvis Anderson |
Orr |
Stephens Locke Bhullar Wong Lekstrom MacKay Halsey-Brandt K. Stewart Bloy Suffredine Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr |
|
|
|||
| MacPhail | Kwan | ||
Bill (No. 6) read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.
On the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 7) intituled Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 2004, a debate arose.
Bill (No. 7) read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.
On the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 8) intituled Ports Property Tax Act, a debate arose.
Bill (No. 8) read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.
On the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 13) intituled Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, a debate arose.
On the motion of Ms. MacPhail, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.
(In Committee -- Section A)
10. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $44,682,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Ministry Operations, to 31st March, 2005.
Section A of Committee of Supply reported the Resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
Report to be considered at the next sitting.
Committee to sit again at the next sitting.
By agreement, summary debate of estimates passed in Section A (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries) to be considered at the next sitting.
And then the House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.
CLAUDE RICHMOND, Speaker
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2004: Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada