2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Nos. 18 and 19
OF THE
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
Ten o'clock a.m.
Prayers by Ms. Chong.
The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."
Pursuant to Order, the House resumed the adjourned debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the Session.
The debate continued.
On the motion of Mr. Zirnhelt, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
I have had an opportunity to examine Question Period Blues from Monday, April 10th, and considered the line of questioning as it relates to the application of the sub judice rule.
Stated in its broadest terms, the rule prohibits discussion in the House of matters which are before the court for adjudication. There are obviously many refinements of this rule, and it has often been stated that the rule will be strictly enforced when it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of a case. It has also been stated that where there is doubt, the Speaker should rule in favour of the debate and against the sub judice convention with the understanding that where there is a probability of prejudice to any party, the convention will be applied. (Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, 3rd edition, page 77.)
The sub judice convention does not apply, in the Chair's respectful view, to inquiries surrounding legal costs incurred by any of the parties to existing litigation, but there may well be matters involving confidentiality or solicitor and client privilege respecting such a line of questions -- that is not for the Chair to decide at this time.
A much clearer example of what the Chair views as a breach of the sub judice rule may be found during Question Period Thursday last when the Honourable Member for Richmond Steveston in his preamble to a supplementary question is quoted as follows:
"And now we read in the papers this morning that there's another obstruction tactic that the NDP choose to adopt here. Apparently on Monday they're going to try to convince the court that getting elected by fraudulent means is not prohibited by the Elections Act."
It would appear to the Chair that the Honourable Member is making direct reference to an argument to be presented to the court, and at the same time categorizing the defence as an "obstruction tactic", which the Chair finds is inappropriate and offends the letter and spirit of the sub judice rule.
The Chair would also observe here that it is not essential that the actual question need be put to make a determination that the sub judice convention has been breached. The offensive words or characterisation are often contained in the preamble to a question. I mention this in passing as there seems to be uncertainty in some Members' minds as to whether or not an offence could be committed short of asking the actual question.
I refer now to the Question Period Blues from Monday, April 10th. The Chair has read carefully the questions posed by the Member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, and I refer in particular to the following words:
"Now, I don't know if that minister is going to be appearing for the plaintiff or for the defence this week. But I would like to know from the Premier whether he agrees with his Minister of Employment and Investment that this 1996 budget was a premeditated, determined fraud."
The question was obviously an attempt to obtain an admission of fraud in relation to the budget in question and, as such, had the potential to have a direct bearing on matters under immediate adjudication by the court's hearing in Vancouver. A similar line was pursued by the same Member in her later question where she attempts to implicate the Premier and, at the same time, requests an apology for what she describes as his role in "concocting that fraudulent budget".
The Honourable Member from Matsqui pursued a similar line of questioning, again, with the intent of soliciting some form of admission from the Premier in relation to the 1996 budget.
My examination of the pleadings filed in the Supreme Court in this case, tend to confirm the findings I have made.
It is unlikely in these cases that it can be demonstrated, with absolute certainty, that questions and answers in an exchange such as those which occurred during the last two Question Periods would, as a certainty, affect the outcome of the present court hearing. Having said that, the authorities, in the Chair's view, encourage restraint and, particularly, in an instance where the matter in question is currently being heard in the Courts of British Columbia. There is a more stringent test to be applied when the matter is actually at trial (see House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 536).
In summary, the courtesies between Parliament and the courts have been well established and I would ask Honourable Members to exercise restraint in these matters in order to avoid the impression that debates in Parliament are being used to affect the outcome of matters pending before the court.
Bill Hartley, Speaker
And then the House adjourned at 12.02 p.m.
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
Two o'clock p.m.
Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."
The Hon. G. F. Wilson (Minister of Employment and Investment) tabled the Job Protection Commission Annual Report, 1998.
The Hon. J. Doyle (Minister of Forests) tabled the Forest Appeals Commission Annual Report, 1999.
The Hon. J. Sawicki (Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks) made a ministerial statement regarding National Wildlife Week.
Mr. Coell made a statement.
The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."
Pursuant to Order, the House resumed the adjourned debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the Session.
The debate continued.
On the motion of the Hon. H. Lali, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.
And then the House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.
BILL HARTLEY, Speaker
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada