[ Progress of Bills . . . ]

Ten o'clock a.m.

Prayers by Mr. Barisoff.

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 Small Business, Tourism and Culture).

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section B of Committee of Supply (estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment).

(In Committee -- Section B)

Section B of Committee of Supply reported progress.

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.

Report to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

The Hon. J. MacPhail made representations regarding the point of privilege raised by the Member for Okanagan-Penticton on June 11, 1997.

And then the House adjourned at 11.54 a.m.

Thursday, June 12, 1997

Two o'clock p.m.

The Hon. C. McGregor (Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks) presented to the Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:

Garde B. Gardom
Lieutenant Governor

The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 29) intituled Park Amendment Act, 1997 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Government House,
June 10, 1997.

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. D. Lovick (Speaker) tabled the Special Report No. 19 of the Ombudsman -- An Investigation into the Instability and Recession of Willemar Bluffs (Regional District of Comox- Strathcona).

The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:

Honourable Members:

I have now had an opportunity to review the matter of privilege brought to the House yesterday by the Honourable Member for Okanagan-Penticton.

It seems to me that the heart of the matter raised by the Honourable Member appears on page 2 of his statement, and the allegation is that the Member's privileges were breached in two ways:

1. The Deputy Speaker should not have assumed the Chair for the purpose of ruling on the original matters of privilege because of a reasonable apprehension of bias; and

2. In the disposition of the Honourable Member's points of privilege she demonstrated actual bias.

Let me begin by emphasizing one point: it would be virtually impossible, and quite improper, for the Speaker in this instance to attempt to weigh the evidence which the Member has tabled in support of the allegation of bias, or the counter-evidence presented by the Government House Leader.

This is because it is axiomatic in the Law of Parliament that any such charge should be brought forward by way of a substantive motion under notice, and not clothed in the guise of a matter of privilege. As all Honourable Members are aware, any charges of impropriety or bias directed at a presiding officer are treated by Parliament with the utmost seriousness, and must not, then, arise as incidental to another proceeding.

Our Standing Orders, and our practice since 1985, make it abundantly clear that no appeal lies from the decision of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the Chair of Committees.

In fact, in 1986 an all-party committee of this House, after extensive deliberations, recommended inter alia that appeals of the Speaker's decisions should be abolished. The House then unanimously adopted new Standing Orders including Standing Order 9, as amended. I would also refer all Members to the following commentary which appears in MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, 2nd and 3rd editions:

"If one had to select a single amendment to the Standing Orders recommended to the House by the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills in 1985 which, in the long run, will contribute most toward the enhancement of the dignity of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the amendment to Standing Order 9, abolishing appeals from a ruling of the Chair, would be considered paramount."

It is quite clear from the Honourable Member's statement of privilege that he takes exception to the decision when he suggests on page 2 that the apology as offered was conditional. The Honourable Member goes on to say at the top of page 3, and I quote, "thus it is my contention that no person sitting in the Chair, acting reasonably or objectively, could have accepted the Minister's statement as putting an end to the matter".

I want to emphasize, then, that while it is not in keeping with parliamentary practice for a Speaker to review decisions of a Deputy Speaker, or indeed of Committee Chairs, in this particular instance it seems to me as your Speaker that a brief observation on that decision cannot be avoided in order to determine whether there is any indication whatsoever that an element of bias, as alleged, could be extrapolated from the decision.

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition at pages 140, 141 and 143 confirms the widely accepted proposition that an apology is a full answer to the type of offence alleged in this matter. Indeed, the authority quoted above goes further when it states even after a finding that a Member's conduct amounts to a breach of privilege or a contempt, an apology is a full answer and satisfies the House. In this case, I note the apology was made without any such finding.

The Deputy Speaker heard the apology as given by the Minister and had only to decide whether or not, in her judgment, the words spoken constituted a genuine apology. The Deputy Speaker made that determination which under our rules is not subject to an appeal to the House or the Speaker. That decision having been taken, the alleged offences which were the foundation for the earlier matters of privilege, i.e. that the Member misled the House, were fully answered.

There is, however, one more principle which the Chair wishes to bring emphatically to the attention of Honourable Members, and that is that the actions of a presiding officer ought not to be criticized incidentally in debate upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion, and indeed it has been held that any reflection upon the character or the actions of the Speaker, other than by substantive motion, may be punished as a breach of privilege in itself. (Erskine May's 21st edition at pages 127, 180 and 325.)

It is the Chair's view that the matter of privilege as stated contains a clear accusation of bias on the part of the Deputy Speaker, and in the form in which it was presented might, in itself, be categorized as a breach of privilege in this House.

In summary, it must follow that the matter of privilege fails on two grounds:

1. In essence, it amounts to an appeal of the Deputy Speaker's decision which is clearly contrary to Standing Orders 9 and 15.

2. It contains a charge of bias against the Deputy Speaker which can only be brought forward by a distinct motion on notice.

Dale Lovick, 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 (estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture).

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section B of Committee of Supply (estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment).

(In Committee -- Section B)