The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Ten o’clock a.m.
Prayers by Mr. Bloy.
Mr. Rustad presented the First Report of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations for the Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament.
The Report was taken as read and received.
By leave of the House, Mr. Rustad moved that the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
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. Hawes, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.
And then the House adjourned at 11.58 a.m.
One-Thirty o’clock p.m.
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
On Monday, February 25, the Member for Nanaimo raised a point of privilege in which he put forward his “contention that this House should find that the Premier has misled this House and that he be directed by the House to apologize”. His complaint arose out of comments made by the Premier in response to questions posed by the Leader of the Official Opposition during Committee of Supply debate on the Estimates of the Office of the Premier in May 2007. In particular, the Member’s argument focuses on statements made by the Premier regarding the involvement of government officials with respect to release of documents related to the case Regina v. Basi, Virk and Basi. In his submission, the Member from Nanaimo argued that information, recently brought to his attention, established that staff from the Office of the Premier had, in fact, been involved with the review of documents since 2004 to early 2007. The Member therefore concluded that the Premier had knowingly misled the House in 2007 with respect to his Office’s involvement in the process of reviewing documents, and accordingly, he contended that a prima facie case of privilege should proceed.
In his submission, the Member for Nanaimo presented supporting documents, including various media reports from 2004, which he claimed had been first brought to his attention on Monday, February 18, 2008. The Member also explained that additional information came to light through a media column on Friday, February 22, and he again reserved his right to raise a point of privilege on the morning of February 25. Both reservations were covered in the Members’ statement later that day.
In his submission on this matter, the Government House Leader submitted that at no time did the Premier ever mislead the House. In referencing more extensive comments from the Hansard transcript of May 28, 2007, he described how the Premier explained the role of the Deputy Attorney General with respect to the review and release of relevant Cabinet documents. The Government House Leader described how the Premier stressed repeatedly in that debate that he would not personally intervene or politically interfere with a process which had been delegated to the Deputy Attorney General. In support of these comments, the Government House Leader tabled a letter from the Deputy Attorney General to the Member for Nanaimo in which he describes his role reviewing documents for cabinet confidentiality in a manner identical to that described by the Premier during debate. The Deputy Attorney General also noted in the letter that “as of the date of this letter, there are no documents that have not been disclosed based on any assertion of cabinet privilege.”
I appreciate the submissions and supporting written documentation provided by both Members, which assisted me greatly in my decision with respect to this matter. I have reviewed the evidence put forward by both sides, as well as the transcript of an additional Hansard debate on May 19, 2004. Like the 2007 Hansard transcript referenced earlier, the 2004 transcript also focuses on the debate in Committee of Supply on the estimates of the Office of the Premier. In response to questions from the then Leader of the Opposition, Joy MacPhail, about the government’s role in reviewing relevant court documents regarding cabinet confidentiality, the Premier responded, “I understand there is a package of information which is effectively being reviewed by the Deputy Cabinet Secretary, the special prosecutor and the judge. The judge is now reviewing that information and deciding what the judge believes should be released.”
The articles cited by the Member indicate that in 2004, pursuant to a protocol presented in court by the special prosecutor, documents which had been seized by the RCMP were being examined to see whether they involved Cabinet privilege. The Premier’s comments at that time accurately described the process.
It is clear from the Deputy Attorney General’s letter of February 26, 2008, that the process he was involved in during 2007 was related to disclosure of information to counsel, a completely different process from the process being carried out in 2004. The Premier’s comments in 2007 are consistent with the letter of the Deputy Attorney General. I can see no relationship between the Premier’s comments in 2007 and the process in 2004.
I can find no evidence of a deliberate misleading of the House, — either during the May 2004 Estimates process, or during the similar debate which took place three years later. While the process of reviewing relevant government documents may have changed during this period, the Premier’s comments to the House appear to be an accurate account on both occasions.
I am also compelled to comment on one other important issue with respect to this matter.
In order for a Member to be successful in presenting a matter of privilege, a number of stringent requirements must be met. The necessity for raising a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity is examined in detail in a decision of Speaker Schroeder, reported in the B.C. Journals, November 25/26, 1982. In this decision, Speaker Schroeder cites Standing Order 26 which reads, “Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.” He referenced a number of decisions from the British Parliament at Westminster in which matters concerning newspaper reports published in preceding weeks were refused precedence because they were not brought to the prompt attention of the House.
Speaker Schroeder correctly noted: “Because a motion based on privilege is given precedence over the pre-arranged program of public business, strict compliance with the rules has invariably been required.”
Although the Member from Nanaimo makes reference to a recent media report dated February 22, 2008, in fact much of the substantive information presented in this column, relates to information publicly available through court records and reported almost four years ago in the other media articles which he submitted. The Member explained that these 2004 media reports, including an article in the Vancouver Sun and in a parliamentary journal, were not brought to his attention until February 18. However, it seems to the Chair, based on the existing authorities, that his argument is based on information in the public domain for almost 4 years, and therefore the matter clearly appears to have failed the "earliest opportunity" requirement.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the Premier did not mislead the House, and therefore, no prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out.
HON. BILL BARISOFF, Speaker
Order called for “Members’ Statements.”
Order called for “Oral Questions by Members.”
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. Cantelon, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.
The Speaker declared a short recess.
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor having entered the House, and being seated in the Chair —
E. George MacMinn, Q.C., Clerk of the House, read the titles to the following Acts:
Bill (No. 3) Supply Act (No. 1), 2008.
Bill (No. 4) Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates).
His Honour was pleased in Her Majesty’s name to give assent to the said Acts.
The said assent was announced by E. George MacMinn, Q.C., Clerk of the House, in the following words:
“In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to these Acts.”
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was then pleased to retire.
And then the House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
HON. BILL BARISOFF, Speaker
Tuesday, March 4
Mr. Puchmayr to introduce a Bill intituled Mineworkers Safety Act, 2008.
Mr. Puchmayr to introduce a Bill intituled Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008.
Tuesday, March 4
35 Ms. Trevena to move—
Be it resolved that this House agree that British Columbia needs a high quality, affordable, accessible, universal and publicly funded child care system.
36 Ms. Trevena to move—
Be it resolved that this House opposes the commercialization of child care in British Columbia.
Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada