British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 13, 1975 — Night Sitting (30th Parliament, 5th Session)
30p 05s 750513z
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1975
Night Sitting
[ Page
2313 ]
CONTENTS
Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.
On a point of order. Mr. Chabot — 2313
Point of order
Suspension of Mr. Phillips from service of the House —
Point of order
Suspension of Mr. Bennett from service of the House —
Point of order
Procedure in Committee of Supply. Mr. Smith — 2316
Routine proceedings
Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.
On a point of order. Mr. Smith — 2317
Division on vote 9 — 2317
Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair — 2318
Division on vote 10 — 2318
Department of the Attorney — General estimates.
Division on vote 1 — 2319
On a point of order. Mr. McGeer — 2320
Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2321
Division on Chairman's ruling — 2321
On a point of order. Mr. Gibson — 2322
Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2323
Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2324
Point of order
Procedure in Committee of Supply. Mr. McGeer — 2324
Routine proceedings
Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney — General
estimates.
On a point of order. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2327
Point of order
Request for clarification of procedure in Committee of Supply.
Mr. Chairman — 2327
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1975
The House met at 8:30 p.m.
Orders of the day.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)
On vote 9: Provincial Land Commission, $580,510 —
approved.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there someone on a point of order?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Standing order 45(3):
"At the conclusion of the 45 sittings or the conclusion of
the 135 hours contemplated under this standing order, whichever
shall last occur, the Chairman of the Committee of Supply shall
forthwith put all questions necessary to carry every vote and
item of each estimate, such questions not being subject to
amendment or debate."
Shall vote 9 pass? So ordered.
HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Vote 10, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I am rather shocked and dismayed....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member make his point of order,
please?
MR. CHABOT: That's what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman. If you
wouldn't have such a closed mind, I would make my point of
order. I said that I was rather shocked and dismayed at the
House Leader attempting to railroad votes through without the
opportunity...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order.
Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Interjections
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I am on my feet...
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Would the Hon.
Member be seated?
MR.CHABOT: ...and I've been recognized....
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated please?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members be
seated?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members be
seated?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would order the Hon. Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Hon. Member for South
Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to be seated.
Interjections.
[ Page 2314 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and
the Member for South Peace River to be seated.
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, order.
MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order.
MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): We're on vote
9. You can't deny it.
AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't even had a vote on it yet.
MR. BENNETT: We're on vote 9.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right now.
MR. BENNETT: You can't afford to tell the truth. You want to
deny democracy by the clock.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace
River on a point of order. However, the standing order is
clear. Would the Hon. Member proceed?
Interjections.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for South Peace River on a point of
order.
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on vote 9...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no debate on vote
MR. PHILLIPS: ...the Legislature prorogued when we....
AN HON. MEMBER: We're trying to go to vote 10.
MR. PHILLIPS: What are you doing? I've got something to say
on vote 9 and you just announced a moment....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Interjections.
MR. PHILLIPS: I was not allowed to make....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated forthwith?
Interjections.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on
consideration of vote 9, the Hon. Member for South Peace River
rose on a point of order.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
Interjections.
[Mr. Speaker rises.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River be seated,
and the Leader of the Opposition?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order the Hon. Members to withdraw.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Withdraw!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Withdraw!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
Interjections.
[ Page
2315 ]
MR. SPEAKER: When the Hon. Members refuse to be seated so
that I can hear the report from the Chairman, then you are
being disorderly.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: When you have a point of order, you will raise
it at the proper time. If you are not prepared to obey the
rules of the House, then I ask you to withdraw.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order you to be seated.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order you to be seated.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order you to be seated.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order you now to withdraw since you're not
prepared to be seated.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for South Peace River....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: You make your point of order when you are
recognized by the Chair!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order the Sergeant-at-Arms to
remove the Hon. Member for South Peace River immediately.
[Interruption.]
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: And if you don't sit down, I'll ask you to
leave too!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: When you have any right to speak you will be recognized.
MRS. JORDAN: Shame!
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: You know the rule that you don't stand when the
Speaker is standing. If you don't believe that, then you don't
believe in the parliamentary system!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask you to be seated.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order you to withdraw.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I order the Sergeant-at-Arms to
remove the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly leave?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MRS. JORDAN: Shame, shame!
MR. SPEAKER: Would you leave?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If you don't know the rules of
this House, it's time you learned them.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
[ Interruption]
MR. SPEAKER: Now will the House be quiet so that I can hear the report
from the Chairman?
Interjections.
[ Page 2316 ]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee in
consideration of vote 9, a point of order was raised by the
Hon. Member for North Peace River. However, he did not make the
point of order so I ordered him to take his seat. He refused to
obey my order.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter of the Member for South
Peace River has already been taken care of. Mr. Chairman, you
will resume the chair.
[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a point of order?
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace
River on a point of order. I ask the House to be quiet while he
makes his point of order.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, there was no attempt on the part of
the Chairman to put vote 9 before this House, to have it
discussed, to ask if we wanted a division, to do anything
except to move from vote 9 to vote 10 like that! That's a
disgrace! A disgrace!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have had a report from the
Chairman and I really can't debate the matter with the Hon.
Member for North Peace River.
MR. SMITH: I'm not trying to debate it. I'm only trying to
tell you what happened.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I'd just point out that if
a Member is asked to sit down by the Chairman — that was
the report from the Chairman, that he didn't have a point of
order and he refused....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I cannot hear any other further
evidence that is not something that is reported from the
committee. What was reported from the committee was that the
Hon. Member for South Peace River refused to sit down when he
was advised that he did not have a point of order.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): That's not true!
MR. SPEAKER: Because he did not, he therefore was in defiance of the
Chair.
MRS. JORDAN: Remove that Chairman — that's not
true.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, occasionally in this House it takes
extreme measures to bring before not only the Chairman but the
Speaker himself the problems that we've been involved in. Had
the Chairman, while he was in that chair, listened to the point
of order that was trying to be raised by the Member for South
Peace River and allowed him to make his point of order before
he ruled him out of order and jumped up to report.... This is
a complete dereliction of his duty and a disgrace to this
assembly, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is going beyond the terms of
the Committee of the Whole House in....
MR. SMITH: I'm only trying to relate to you what has
predicated this type of action.
[Mr. Speaker rises.]
MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Members, as I tried to
point out, that when the Chair is dealing with a point of
order, it is the duty of the Member when the Chairman stands to
hear him respectfully and in silence and not to shout and not
to do anything to prevent the Chair from dealing with the
question.
When I came into the House just now and sat in this chair, I
was greeted by nothing but shouts. I could not get order. That,
obviously, is not the way parliament should be run. Therefore,
before I could even deal with the question, I had the question
of getting order.
I ask the House once again to respect the rules. The Chair
will, of course, deal with questions of order if you make
proper points of order. I ask the Chairman to return to the
chair.
[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]
Interjection.
MRS. JORDAN: You're a disgrace!
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)
On vote 9: Provincial Land Commission, $ 580,510 —
continued.
[ Page 2317 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 9 pass?
So ordered.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There can be no point of order in the middle
of a division.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're in the middle of a
division. After the division is made, then you can make the
point of order.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated, please?
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is
simply — this: you have requested a vote on this
particular division, vote 9.
AN HON. MEMBER: You asked for it.
MR. SMITH: You've requested a vote on it, there's a division
on it and.... Yes, okay, we asked for it, but I suggest to the
Hon. Chairman that there are two Members, specifically the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Member for South
Peace River (Mr. Phillips), who are prevented from
participating in this vote and they would like to. I would like
to just ask your indulgence in the matter and defer the vote
until such time as they're in their places properly, and....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the
Chair has no power to make any change in this respect. We shall
continue with the division.
Interjections.
Vote 9 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 27
Hall
Macdonald
Barrett
Dailly
Nimsick
Stupich
Calder
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
King
Lea
Young
Radford
Lauk
Nunweiler
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Barnes
Kelly
Webster
Lewis
NAYS — 13
Jordan
Smith
Chabot
Phillips
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
Williams, L.A.
McGeer
Wallace
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the
House.
On vote 10: Milk Board, $185,714.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?
MR. CHABOT: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman. I happen to be
on my feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There being no points of order,
I declare vote 10....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If an Hon. Member is rising on a point of
order, the....
MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, then will the Hon. Member be seated?
MR. CHABOT: I'm rising on vote 10.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no debate under standing order 45(3).
Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr.
Chabot) be seated?
MR. CHABOT: Why, Mr. Chairman?
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now would the Hon.
Member remain seated until I've made my point —
also the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.
Gibson) — until I've made a few comments?
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
[ Page 2318 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Members can only be recognized under
this standing order on a point of order, and they must be very
specific, and the Hon. Members have to make it immediately,
such as that we might, have missed a vote or some such thing as
that. However, the Hon. Members must state that they're on a
point of order when they rise; otherwise, I will simply ask
them to be seated so that we can continue with the voting.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr.
Chairman, I would move that the Chairman do now leave the
chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair would rule that such
a motion at this time can only be moved by the government...
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ...in accordance with the clear direction
given by the comments of Mr. Speaker during the afternoon
sitting.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have to
draw your attention to standing order 62, which I will take the
liberty of reading: "A motion that the Chairman leave the chair
shall always be in order, shall take precedence over any other
motion, and shall not be debatable."
Interjections.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Come on, now. Be consistent
with what you said this afternoon.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is consistent with the comments that were
made by Mr. Speaker during the afternoon sitting. Because there
appears to be uncertainty, I'll put the question. The motion is
that the Chairman do now leave the chair.
MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the government will allow the lights to stay on until 11
o'clock tonight.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is no point of order.
Motion negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 13
Jordan
Smith
Chabot
Fraser
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
McGeer
Williams, L.A.
Wallace
NAYS — 27
Hall
Macdonald
Barrett
Dailly
Nimsick
Stupich
Calder
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
King
Lea
Young
Radford
Lauk
Nunweiler
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Barnes
Kelly
Webster
Lewis
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 10 is now passed. Is there a request for
a division?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no debate. I've not recognized
anyone. The vote is now passed.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair would rule that the
only thing you can stand on apparently is on requesting a
division or on a point of order, providing you state a point of
order when you rise. If you don't state a point of order....
Interjections.
AN HON. MEMBER: We asked for a division.
Vote 10 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 27
Hall
Macdonald
Barrett
Dailly
Nimsick
Stupich
Calder
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
King
Lea
Young
Radford
Lauk
Nunweiler
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Barnes
Kelly
Webster
Lewis
[ Page 2319 ]
NAYS — 13
Jordan
Smith
Chabot
Fraser
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
Wallace
Williams, L.A.
McGeer
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of
the House.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY — GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 11: Attorney-General's office, $86,036
— continued.
Vote 11 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 26
Hall
Macdonald
Dailly
Nimsick
Stupich
Calder
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
King
Lea
Young
Radford
Lauk
Nunweiler
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Barnes
Kelly
Webster
Lewis
NAYS — 13
Jordan
Smith
Chabot
Fraser
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
Williams, L.A.
McGeer
Wallace
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of
the House.
MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman
....
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for
Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.
MR. McGEER: No, I'm not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I
move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to
sit again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report
progress and ask leave to sit again.
AN HON. MEMBER: Resolution.
MR. McGEER: Report resolution.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, that the committee rise, report
resolution and ask leave to sit again.
On the motion, the Chair would rule that the motion is out
of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, may I...?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is on the grounds outlined
by the Speaker this afternoon. Now the previous motion was a
different motion, and I was corrected on that.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that the motion is out of
order.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member wish to
challenge my ruling?
MR. McGEER: No, I want to speak to your ruling, Mr.
Chairman, because I think you are obliged....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no debate on a ruling.
You just decide whether you agree with it or you don't.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you are always obliged to hear a
point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You made your point of order. The Chair
has made a ruling. You may not discuss it any further.
MR. McGEER: I never made any point of order. Listen to what
we have to say.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? The
Chair has made a ruling. Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Unless he wishes to challenge the ruling of the Chair, he must
be seated.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Under standing order 38, it
says: "Mr. Speaker may permit debate of
[ Page 2320 ]
the point of order before rendering his decision, but such
debate must be strictly relevant..."
Now the Chair has made the ruling that the motion that was
made was out of order.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In the discretion of the Chair,
sufficient debate was allowed. There is no more debate on the
point of order.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated, please?
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd ask the Hon. Member for North
Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the Hon. First Member
for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) to be seated.
Now the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey
made a point of order.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, made a motion. The Chair ruled that
the motion was out of order. The Hon. Member does have a
parliamentary option — that is, he may challenge the
ruling of the Chair, but that is all.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member has an option. He may
challenge the ruling of the Chair. The Chair has made a firm
ruling.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just wait a moment. Would the Hon. Member be
seated?
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, for the edification of
the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.
McGeer), the Hon. Member moved a motion. The Chair, based on
comments that were made by Mr. Speaker this afternoon, ruled
that the motion was out of order. The parliamentary alternative
for the Hon. Member is only one: he may say nothing or he may
challenge the ruling of the Chair. That's all.
MR. McGEER: (Mike not on.)...when he was a Member of the
opposition he made such motions and the former government
accepted them. So did the Premier, Mr. Chairman. You weren't
here at that time but I was. We've got two sets of rules in
this House: one for that group when they were in opposition and
another set for when they are government. Talk about democracy
— nobody's destroyed democracy the way that group has
destroyed it, Mr. Chairman. Are you going to stand up for them
or are you going to stand up for democracy?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?
The Hon. Minister of Health on a....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North
Vancouver–Capilano was attempting to get the floor on a
point of order. Would the Hon. Member state his point of
order?
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I was, but obviously opposition
Members rank below the Members of the government in this House
when they're being recognized on a point of order. We can't
even get the floor.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, you only read a selected part of
standing order 38. The beginning of it says:
" A Member addressing the House shall, if
[ Page 2321 ]
called to order by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by
another Member, sit down while the point of order is being
stated, after which he may explain."
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. GIBSON: You gave that Hon. Member no right to explain!
The standing order goes on:
"Mr. Speaker may permit debate of the point of order before
rendering his decision, but such debate must be strictly
relevant to the point of order taken."
You permitted no debate, Mr. Chairman. Are you running a
fair House or not? I say you're not!
MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order it's a permissive thing.
The Chair, if he's clear in his decision, does not need to
allow debate on a point of order.
The Hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
Interjections.
MR. McGEER: I rise under standing order 38 to indicate why
I'm protesting your ruling.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member challenging
the ruling?
MR. McGEER: No, no, I'm standing up under standing order 38
...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would the Hon. Member take his seat?
MR. McGEER: ...to do what I'm entitled to do under the
rules of this House. Even your rules, Mr. Chairman, state that
I'm entitled to do this. I am entitled to explain to you that
I've sat on the opposition side of the House when your friends
on the government side sat on the opposition side.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would order the Hon. Member to be
seated.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Interjection.
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. House Leader.
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Vote 12 executive and administrative.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. McGEER: We're challenging your ruling, and then we're
going to have a division on every single vote that's brought
forward.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who's running it over there?
Interjections.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply the
Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)
moved the motion that the committee rise and report resolutions
and ask leave to sit again. The Chair ruled that the motion was
out of order and the Hon. First Member for
Vancouver–Point Grey challenged my ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is
whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained.
Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following
division:
YEAS — 27
Hall
Macdonald
Barrett
Dailly
Nimsick
Stupich
Calder
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
King
Lea
Young
Radford
Lauk
Nunweiler
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Barnes
Kelly
[ Page 2322 ]
Webster
Lewis
Gabelmann
NAYS — 13
Jordan
Smith
Chabot
Fraser
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
Wallace
McGeer
Williams, L.A.
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of
the House.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
On vote 12: executive and administrative, $865,448.
MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I move that
the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.
McGeer) be now heard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order 45(3) there is no debate.
Therefore the motion is out of order.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, may I read you the terms of
standing order 37?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. GIBSON: "...a motion may be made that any Member who
has risen 'be now heard 'or 'do now speak,' which motion shall
forthwith be put without debate."
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point raised by
the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated, please?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. First Member for
Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) be seated?
Interjections.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I order the Hon. First Member
for Vancouver–Point Grey to be seated.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the point is that the Chairman wishes to
consult with his Clerks for a moment before he recognizes any
other Member on a point of order.
Interjections.
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, on explaining the ruling of the Chair....
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to say my piece
first. Okay?
The reason the Chair made the ruling that the motion is out
of order is because under standing order 45(3), which is
presently in force in Committee of Supply, there is no debate.
Consequently, it is impossible for 'this motion to be
applicable and therefore it's out of order.
MR. McGEER: On a point of order, I would like to refer you,
Sir, to pages 84, 85, 86 and 87 of the Journals of the
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for the year 1972,
which includes debates taking place and motions put on the date
of February 25, 1972.
The Premier has just left the chamber, but if he were to
stay in the chamber he would confirm for you, Mr. Chairman,
that on several occasions in that noteworthy evening fie put
the motion that the House rise, report progress and ask leave
to sit again. The Chairman accepted that motion; it was voted
on, and the House gave unanimous consent that it be recorded in
the Journals of the House. He was defeated, but it was
an exercise in democracy.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that very same man, sitting in the
Premier's chair, runs from the chamber when the precedent he
set is discussed in the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.
MR. McGEER: He runs like a coward from the chamber. He can't
stand and face criticism of his own
[ Page 2323 ]
actions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. McGEER: He runs away.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order. On the point made by
the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey the comments
that he has made in no way affect the fact that under standing
order 45(3) there is no debate and therefore the point that
he's making is irrelevant.
Interjections
MR. McGEER: But isn't it interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the same man
who fought for democracy then is running from the House tonight?
MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, I would draw your attention
that His Honour, the Speaker, in ruling on the application of
standing order 45, on Friday last, found that it was
being a previous standing order of this House.
Now I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is also
which have been fulfilled, and under which a motion was
properly moved and put before you, Sir, that the Hon. First
Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) be now
heard, and it is your duty to put that motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, to be heard predicates
the right to debate, and since that is not provided for in
standing order 45(3), the motion is out of order.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, there's a conflict there on this
point of order. There's a conflict between standing orders, and
...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think that we've heard enough of this
matter and, therefore, if any Member wishes to challenge the
ruling of the Chair, they may do so. However, the ruling of the
Chair....
MR. GIBSON: No, you haven't heard enough on this.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. The Chair has made a
ruling...If the Hon. Member wishes to challenge the ruling,
please do so; otherwise take your seat.
MR. McGEER: May we question your
interpretation of a ruling on a point
of order?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling is made on the basis of....
Under standing order 45(3) no debate is allowed during the
passing of these votes. Therefore, any motion concerning debate
is obviously irrelevant because of this standing order.
Interjections.
MR. SMITH: On a point of order, could I suggest to you that
the rule you're quoting from suggests that there's no debate on
the estimates as such, which would be the votes that are put to
the House. But there's nothing to say that a person cannot rise
on a point of order or draw to your attention another of the
rules of the debate and our standing orders which are part and
parcel of the parliamentary process in this House.
There's nothing to say that that in any way impedes the
Chair in putting the motions...
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. SMITH: . ...and the questions on estimates, one after
the other. Now obviously the Member for Vancouver–Point
Grey only rose on a point of order, which was denied to him.
And we had to draw to your attention another rule of the House
in order that he could be heard, even on his point of
order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair allowed some latitude in regard to
this, and then the Chair made a ruling. The normal procedure is
that when the Chair makes a ruling, that's it. If the Member
wants to carry it further, he appeals the ruling.
MRS. JORDAN: Even the gallery knows what a farce you are,
Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In the judgment of the Chair,
the Chair has heard sufficient to make a ruling. The ruling has
been made. The only choice open now is the challenge to the
ruling.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're trying to gag debate even on points
of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Shame on you!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Member wish to challenge the
ruling of the Chair?
AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask for an
explanation of....
[ Page 2324 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Look, the Chair has made a ruling. You may
challenge the ruling, period! Would the Hon. Member be seated?
Would the Hon. Member be seated?
AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply the
Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)
made a motion and the Chair ruled that the motion was out of
order.
MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, the motion was made by
myself, and the motion was that the Hon. First Member for
Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) be now heard.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll repeat the thing for the benefit of the
Speaker and the edification of the Members. I thank the Hon.
Member for his correction.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. CHAIRMAN: While in Committee of Supply, the Hon. Member
for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) made a motion
that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.
McGeer) be now heard. The Chair ruled that the motion was out
of order. My ruling was challenged.
Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following
division:
YEAS — 28
Hall
Macdonald
Barrett
Dailly
Nimsick
Stupich
Hartley
Calder
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Williams, R. A.
Cocke
King
Lea
Young
Radford
Lauk
Nunweiler
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Barnes
Kelly
Webster
Lewis
NAYS — 13
Jordan
Smith
Chabot
Fraser
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
Williams, L.A.
McGeer
Wallace
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of
the House.
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: On the point that was raised by the Hon. Member
....
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....
MR. SPEAKER: May I explain first the point that was asked?
Under standing order 16, the Speaker may wait from two to five
minutes, but he must put the question before five minutes,
according to the standing order. I waited the full time, and
therefore I didn't have to ask anybody whether they felt we
should carry on further. Normally, I will take it sooner if
everybody is agreed that all are here who can be present.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we have requested from the Chairman
an explanation of his ruling that the motion made by myself
that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit
again be not accepted by the Chairman.
It seems very clear to me, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the
Journals of the House of February 25, 1972, where Mr.
Barrett, who was then Leader of the Opposition, made a similar
motion that the Chairman of the day — I don't want to
make comparisons between chairmen.... That motion was
accepted, voted on by the House, and, by unanimous leave of the
House, recorded in the Journals . What I can't understand
is the difference in ruling between the two chairmen. I wonder
whether his ruling now repudiates the action taken by a former
chairman in a previous parliament when the man who is now
Leader of the Government made that same motion.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that the rule was
different at that time in regard to standing order 45.
MR. MORRISON: It sure was.
MR. SPEAKER: Under the present one, all votes must be taken
without debate or amendment. Once the committee embarks upon
the job that is undertaken from the House, they must carry on
with that. As I pointed out, any motion by a Member of the
House other than the government House Leader would be a
dilatory motion — that is, that the committee rise and
report progress — and is so viewed, as I see it, because
of the wording of standing
[ Page 2325 ]
order 45, which holds the strict compliance by the committee
when it embarks on the votes to putting them without debate or
amendment. That is quite different from the situation the Hon.
Member is referring to, when any Member of the House could, in
a case such as he mentions where debate was permitted and where
not all the votes were to be taken seriatim.... Debate was
permitted on each vote at that time. But they didn't have a
time limit of 135 hours or 45 sittings.
MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, if I may, Sir, speaking to
that
interpretation, the committee always governs itself. If it
feels in its judgment that the time is not now to continue the
work of the committee, the House can always instruct the
committee at some further time or even forthwith to go back
into committee for that consideration.
But as I understand it, the committee, at no time is
compelled to sit against its will, and quite clearly the
insistence of the Chairman that the motion to adjourn should
not be entertained is, in fact, compulsion. The House, and no
committee of the House, should be compelled at any time to sit
against its will. You, Sir, by making that ruling are acting,
in my view, in a dictatorial fashion and the parallel is
exactly the same in 1972 when Mr. Barrett made that motion as
when I made that motion today.
MR. SPEAKER: The point is that I have to interpret a rule
that the House had already made its ruling on. I pointed out to
the Hon. Member that I was merely attempting to explain the
situation in the traditional sense, but that my decision on the
matter had already been, in effect, adopted by the House prior
to anything I had said. So it is a ruling of the House come to
by a decision of the Chair in the Committee of the Whole House
which was sustained on appeal to the House.
MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, by that ruling, does it mean
to say that you are going to set a precedent in this House that
the Committee of the Whole, or any select standing committee of
the House, will be compelled to sit against its will?
MR. SPEAKER: I don't say that at all. But I do say that the
House is the judge of its own affairs, and the Speaker doesn't,
as far as I know, change the rules that the House has come to a
decision on. I don't propose to set myself against the wish of
the whole House, which was decided by a vote of this House.
I think the Hon. Members know that this question was raised,
there was a division on it, and the House has expressed its
opinion as to whether it wishes to sit or not, whether the
point of order will be entertained or not, and in each case
they have rejected the proposition that you are
maintaining.
MR. GIBSON: On that point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker.
Accepting the fact that the House has made known its views, I
would suggest to your Honour that the view the House made known
was that the motion that was in order was that the committee
should rise, report and ask leave to sit again. There was no
stricture as to whether that motion was to be moved by an Hon.
Member on that side of the House or on this side of the House.
It was simply giving the opinion of the House that that motion
was in order during the time that standing order 45 is in
operation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that your duty under standing
order 6, to maintain order and enforce the rules of the House...It is obligatory on you, Sir, to instruct the Chairman to
accept that motion once it is properly moved because the House
has pronounced on it only a couple of days hence and found it
to be in order.
MR. SPEAKER: I must disagree with respect that the House has
done anything of the sort. What it has done, as I see it, is
agree to support the Chairman's ruling, which he made. So far
as I'm concerned I can't deal with that until the matter comes
to me on a further appeal of a ruling of the Chair. There is no
matter before me at the present moment upon which I could make
a ruling.
MR. GIBSON: It's just been brought to you, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: No, it hasn't, because I can only deal with
what was said before me from committee, and that matter we have
now concluded, sustaining the Chair on that decision. I really
must call the Chair back. I can't deal with matters in
value.
MR. GIBSON: Under standing order 6, Sir, you must deal with
it.
MR. SPEAKER: I must disagree on this point because the
matter isn't before me. I don't deal with matters so far as
actual rulings are concerned, save upon a real situation that
is in existence, upon which an appeal has been taken.
MR. GIBSON: But there is a real situation, Mr. Speaker, with
respect.
MR. SPEAKER: That is in Committee of the Whole House. It
isn't in the House.
MR. GIBSON: The Chairman has just gone against the order of
this House as found in a vote a couple of days ago. Mr.
Speaker, you cannot allow that to go.
MR. SPEAKER: I must disagree. If the matter comes up in
committee, the proper place to raise it
[ Page 2326 ]
would be in committee.
MR. GIBSON: It is your duty!
MR. SPEAKER: That is not before me.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for one more point of
interpretation? I can find nowhere in my standing orders, and I
would appreciate it if you could point this out to me, where in
Committee of the Whole House one Member has greater rights over
any other. Clearly the Chairman, and by your statement this
evening, are suggesting that the government leader has
different rights in Committee of the Whole from any other
Member. I cannot see anything in my standing orders which gives
one Member a greater right than any other in Committee of the
Whole, and I would be grateful if you would point that out.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would like to point out to the Hon.
Member, I've said before that if you study May very closely you
would see that initiative rests in the Ministers of the Crown
when it comes to estimates, insofar as what estimates they put
before the House. This is really based on the tradition that
the initiative, rests with the Crown on what votes are put
before the House.
MR. McGEER: We don't quarrel with that, Mr. Speaker, but
that wasn't the question. The question was whether Members have
equal rights to request that the committee adjourn. That's what
the inequality is about, not which vote gets put to the
committee for discussion. Whether the committee should adjourn
its business — there is inequality there.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, when the matter comes up, if it does come
up, then you can raise it with the Chairman, and the Chairman
can then take the sense of the House on the question.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Chair must be consistent. It
cannot interpret the rule one way one night and another way the
next.
MR. SPEAKER: May I point out....
MR. McGEER: And then put it one way, and another way the
next time. Clearly we have no rules if that is the case.
MR. SPEAKER: It's a very valuable discussion, but unfortunately it is
out of order, as you know. I cannot deal with the matter in vacuo, and it is
at this time, my job in coming back to the chair to put the question on a ruling
of the Chair. I have done that. Now I must leave the chair, and I can't deal
with some matter you want to wish on me in the way of an abstract problem.
It must occur in the Committee of the Whole House and be
referred to the House for a decision. Then I put that decision
to the House to make the decision; I don't make that up myself.
The House decides on the ruling. That's the problem. That's the
way the rules go; they've always gone that way. That's the way,
presumably, I must respect them too.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect, Sir, the way the
rules go — standing order 9 — I'm sorry I was
saying 6 earlier: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and
decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an
appeal to the House, without debate."
MR. SPEAKER: May I put this to you: that is a point of order
dealing with a real situation before the House. That's what
that means — not abstract problems which you wish to
present to me.
Secondly, the other thing that I point out is that points of
order shall be decided without debate. I'm glad you mentioned
that — without debate.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there's no debate — there's
comment on a point of order. I would like to bring to Your
Honour's attention the words that Mr. Chairman said to you
reporting on Monday:
Mr. Speaker, while in committee a point of order was raised
that the 45th sitting having ended, a motion that the committee
rise and report progress would not be in order until the votes
had been put squarely on this case. The Chair ruled that the
fact that we had reached the end of the 45th sitting and that
we were now in Committee of Supply did not preclude putting a
further motion to report progress. My ruling was
challenged.
His ruling was upheld, Mr. Speaker. The pretence is now that
that would be overturned. It is nonsense. I say to Your Honour
that if you are to preserve any respect for order in this House
you must rule on that.
MR. SPEAKER: I can't rule on that because the matter is not
before me. You know that as well as I do.
Interjections.
MR. McGEER: On a point of order, perhaps you could advise us
how we do put it before you other than standing in our places
in assembly and explaining it to you. Do we write a letter?
MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members —
they may have overlooked this fact, and in referring to this
the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)
is not paying regard
[ Page 2327 ]
to this point — that in Beauchesne in the 4th
edition, page 82, it states very clearly: "All motions
referring to the business of the House should be introduced by
the Leader of the House." That is the proper course. The House
Leader has the initiative on this question in Committee of the
Whole House on estimates.
MR. SMITH: That's taken out of context.
MR. McGEER: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano
(Mr. Gibson) has pointed out very clearly....
MR. SPEAKER: But you know that I cannot rule on anything;
there is nothing before me. I must call on the Chair to carry
on the business of the committee.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, we'll not want for ingenuity, if I know
the Hon. Member.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the
chair.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, we've got a new goalie! He let too many
pucks through.
Vote 12: executive and administrative, $865,448 —
approved.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will entertain a point of order on
the rules only as they are before us.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to
page 341 at the bottom of the page — this is the 18th
edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , which
is our standard text in areas of difficulty:
"Urgent matters which require the immediate
intervention of the House, if they should occur during a
sitting of the House, may be raised at once in spite of the
interruption of the debate or other proceedings" —
except, of course, a division. "A complaint on such a matter is
entertained by the House as soon as it is raised, but if
complaint is made in committee the Chairman reports progress
and the Speaker resumes the chair."
Mr. Chairman, we have had a very serious discussion a short
time ago on the issue of whether or not two conflicting rulings
of the Chairman should be discussed by the Speaker. The
Speaker, no doubt quite properly, indicated that unless he is
in the chair and is properly charged with this particular
problem, he cannot consider it. Therefore, under the provisions of
May , which covers this point not covered in our rules, I
would urge that we have this matter properly examined by the
Speaker and that you, Mr. Chairman, in the light of it,
rise and report to him this serious procedural problem of a
conflict of decision of your predecessor in that particular
position. I move that the committee rise and report this
specific matter, which requires
interpretation, to the
Speaker.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state the specific matter, Mr.
Member, please?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I realize, of course, you
were not present when the discussion took place previously. The
discussion deals with the conflict between the Chairman's
decisions on the question of whether or not the committee rises
and reports progress and whether or not there is a distinction
between this particular motion when put by a government Member
or the government leader (Hon. 'Mr. Barrett) or, indeed, any
other Member of the House be they government or opposition.
This was canvassed at some length through the generosity of
the Speaker but he pointed out at the end of it that while it
was an interesting academic subject, because of the fact that
he had not been properly charged with the question by the
committee he could not at that time render judgment. So he
suggested to us that we bring it to him by way of a report of
the committee in proper form.
I move, Mr. Chairman, that we now rise, report progress, and
charge the Speaker with this problem of a conflict of decision
of the Chair.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Members will give the Chair a
moment, please....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order, please.
There seems to be confusion under rule 45A of the House that
only the House Leader or the government can call that the
committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Therefore the Chair agrees with the Hon. Member and will ask
the Speaker for a ruling on this.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in Committee of the Whole House,
the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) raised
a point of confusion, under our standing rules, as to whether
or not only the House Leader can, at the present time,
[ Page 2328 ]
request the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to
sit again, and we're asking for your guidance on this
matter.
MRS. JORDAN: Tell him it's under the closure rule, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the situation under standing order 45A
clearly requires, under the House rules, that the votes to be
taken in the Committee of the Whole House shall proceed
forthwith unless the committee shall be moved to rise and
report progress.
Standing order 62 — I pointed out on a previous occasion — gives the Member
an opportunity, despite any other rules, to move that the Chairman leave the
chair. I think I mentioned that the other day. And it says:
"shall take precedence over any other motion and shall not
be debatable. Such motion, if rejected, cannot be renewed unless some intermediate
proceeding has taken place."
That covers that motion dealing with getting the Chairman
out of the chair.
Under standing order 45, however, an entirely different rule
has now come into force since last year which clearly requires
the committee to proceed with all votes without debate or
amendment. I pointed out this afternoon that the government for
years has made a practice, when it didn't wish to proceed with
the estimates in the Committee of Supply, of putting a vote in
and immediately withdrawing it and moving that the committee
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The point was
that the initiative at that time always remained to overcome
the precedence rule, and I pointed that out.
When you have a situation where the committee is sitting,
and they have the job assigned to them by the House to pass all
the votes that must be taken at one time after the given event
— that is, conclusion of all debates after 135 hours, or
45 sittings — at that moment it is charged with the duty
of carrying on those votes unless the initiative is taken away
by the government, as I pointed out. The government has the
opportunity, if it wishes, to defer the taking of all those
votes, if you read the decision that I pointed out this
afternoon.
It may be very unfortunate that the initiative is in the
government but, as I see it, it does have that initiative to
make a motion. The House Leader can make a motion that a
committee rise and report progress. The only thing that can
interrupt that that I know of is reaching the hour of
adjournment, when the committee can rise without putting a
vote, report progress to the Speaker, and the House then
adjourns.
If you see the context of that, it is obvious that the House had risen on Friday
at the conclusion of the 135 hours and the 45 sittings after 1 o'clock. The
Chairman quite properly came out of committee, reported to the House, and the
House is not bound to put any votes. It is bound to follow the adjournment rule
under standing order 2. So the situation then is that the Speaker is dealing
with the House and not something coming from committee.
On Monday, the question arose and was decided by the House
on a vote that when the government leader moved that the
committee rise and report progress, that motion was acceptable.
It was accepted by him over the protest of an Hon. Member, I
understand, from the report given by the Chair. It was put to
the House as to whether his ruling was correct. The House ruled
that the Chairman's ruling in committee was correct.
The question arises whether another Member could put the
same motion when he is faced with standing order 45A(3) to do
with the committee going about forthwith its duties. It is my
opinion, in view of the authorities I quoted this afternoon,
that they must wait upon the motion of the House Leader to
intervene or interrupt that process upon which they have
embarked because it clearly says they must put all the
questions that have to be put and all the estimates that have
to be put without interruption and without debate and
forthwith.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: (Mike not on.) ...or clarified perhaps
the precise point we are putting to you. Mr. Speaker, you were
no doubt right in your decision on Friday and we accept that,
as I did at the time. I raised the point; I accepted your
judgment; we accepted your judgment on Monday. But, Mr.
Speaker, I have had a look at the 13th edition, which was
printed more than 50 years ago. I have looked at the page
references which you gave in your decision, page 351, and I
fail to find any British precedent to rule 62, which is a 1975
rule of the British Columbia House, which states: "A motion
that the Chairman leave the chair shall always be in order,
shall take precedence of any other motion, and shall not be
debatable."
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, had we not such a motion and if we
had not such a rule and had relied only on British precedents,
no doubt your ruling would be absolutely without question.
However, in the light of a clear statement in rule 62 to the
effect that an unlimited motion from any Member shall always be
in order, it is clear that British precedents applied to rule
45 obviously must take an inferior position to rule 62 as
applied to rule 45.
MR. SPEAKER: I must say....
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What we have here is a clear statement of
our rules, a clear statement of what this House is to follow,
and the precedent of more than to years ago in the 13th edition
of May — we are now up to the 18th edition — really
does not seem to
[ Page 2329 ]
apply in the light of rule 62.
The specific case is this: if it is possible under rule 62
for a government Member to put it forward, they did not, when
they put that motion forward, claim British tradition or
British practice; they claimed rule 62 as having priority. We
on the opposition side claim exactly the same rights as other
Members. We see no reason to follow British practices which are
clearly superseded by now own rules in the red book that is
issued under your authority, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that I took
the view that standing order 62 appears, even though it was
promulgated many years ago before this new standing order 45....
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is printed now.
MR. SPEAKER: Nonetheless, it did say that it shall take
precedence of any other motion and shall not be debatable and
it shall always be in order.
Now that is presumably the remedy that the opposition has
available to it at any time in committee, providing there has
been intervening business between the use of that motion. So,
aside entirely from the question of the committee rising and
reporting progress, that motion, quite apart from that which I
said seemed to be covered by the old usage in the British
House, this would give another opportunity for the opposition
to make that motion that the Chairman leave the chair. But I
suggest that the government has the remedy in its hands, moving
that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again — which is a different motion, as you
understand.
MR. GIBSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest to Your Honour that we are in danger of establishing
something here which is contrary to the practices of this
House. The ruling of the Chairman, which was appealed to the
House on Monday, reads as follows, and I'll quote from his
words in his report to you which specifies the question the
House was voting on. Page 189-4-PS of the Blues on
Monday:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee a point of
order was raised that the 45th sitting having ended, a motion
that the committee rise and report progress would not be in
order until the votes had been put. The Chair ruled that the
fact that we had reached the end of the 45th sitting and that
we were now in Committee of Supply did not preclude putting a
further motion to report progress. My ruling was
challenged.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman's report makes no reference to the mover of that
motion. It does not indicate that it was a government motion; it does not indicate
that it was an opposition motion. It simply says that there was such a motion
moved. And that was upheld by the House. So all I would ask, Mr. Speaker, is
that the House continue to uphold the rule that it upheld on Monday, and that
you, Sir, in particular, continue to uphold that rule.
MR. FRASER: You're in a leg hold trap. Radford might help
you.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member realizes that the only
distinction you have made is as to who moved the motion.
MR. GIBSON: I have further evidence on that particular
point.
MR. SPEAKER: The point is, really, whether the House has
gone further to say that it can only be made by the House
Leader, or someone speaking, in effect, for the Crown.
MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Sir, I hadn't finished my point of
order: I noticed you were conferring with the Clerk so I took a
moment from speaking before you were finished.
I would go on to suggest that the House having given that
ruling, we would have to interpret that ruling in the light of
the precedents of this House to the extent it is available. And
House more than 50 years to an obsolete statute there, to seek
our guidance in that way.
I suggest, Your Honour, that it has been the precedent in
this House that any Member of this House may move, and have it
considered in order, a motion to rise and report progress. That
is well established. It is sometimes done with the consent of
the government, and sometimes not. Sometimes when it is moved
by a private Member it is passed, and sometimes not. But there
is an undoubted right in the hands of a private Member to move
such a motion. I suggest to Your Honour that that undoubted
right is in no way foreclosed by the operation of standing
order 45 and cannot be foreclosed except by clear language so
indicating.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the Hon. Member knows from his
experience in Ottawa, as well, that at a specific there, as
well as under this standing order 45, all questions that remain
that have to be put must be put. And that process is an
obligatory one that is quite different from the normal sittings
of the committee of estimates. Now, in addition, I think the
use of the motion in circumstances that clearly mitigate
against it would not be in a conformity with our standing
order. I point out to the Hon. Member — I'm referring to
this question of a dilatory motion....
[ Page 2330 ]
MR. GIBSON: That's what the government did for two days!
MR. SPEAKER: The government has the power, as I pointed out,
to decide where the committee will carry on the job. When they
decide that they will carry on with the job, then the motions
that are required are supposed to be put forthwith without
debate or amendment.
Now the Hon. Member raises the fact that I referred to the
13th edition of May . Well, I'm sure that he is not at
all unconversant with the reason. You would be well aware that
the standing orders in the British House have changed
considerably since the time we adopted the customs and usages
of the British House of Commons in our standing order 1 since
Consequently, a Speaker has to look back to the customs and
usages as they were when we adopted them and not, in other
words, change chameleon — like with every change in the
British rules today, or else we would be in utter chaos. We
must have some certainty in our rules.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're changing Monday and Tuesday.
MR. GIBSON: What I was suggesting, Sir, is that it is only
necessary to reach back to those customs and usages if one
cannot find ample precedents within the four corners of our own
House; and we find it here. The precedent is that any Hon.
Member has a right to move such a motion and have it found in
order.
MR. SPEAKER: Oh, yes, but there is one other caveat on that,
I also point out, so that we don't take from that pronouncement
that it is all — inclusive. If you look at standing order
44, it says:
"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole
House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of
a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the
Chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse
of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put
the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to
propose the question to the House."
There the Chairman must take upon himself the responsibility
of deciding in such case as a condition whether this is
actually an abuse of the privileges of the House to keep
putting the motions.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, surely Your Honour is not finding
that it is an abuse of the privileges...
MR. SPEAKER: No, no. I said...
MR. GIBSON: ...of the opposition....
MR. SPEAKER: ...that it wasn't quite as unrestricted as you
made out.
MR. GIBSON: No, but it surely is not the case that it is an
abuse when the opposition puts such a motion and not an abuse
when the government puts the motion — one law for the
opposition and another for the government. Your Honour can't
mean that.
MR. SPEAKER: May I listen to the Hon. Member for North Peace
River? He has been seeking the floor.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, I've been trying to get to my feet for
some time, Mr. Speaker. It would seem to me that this matter of
referring to an edition of May or Beauchesne
whenever it is convenient and disregarding our own standing
orders occasionally to make a reference to either the 13th or
the 18th edition or something else is not really the
prerogative of the Chairman, the Speaker or anyone else in this
House. Let me suggest to you that our standing orders are quite
plain in the fact that we do refer to other sources only when
our own rules do not deal with the situation. Could I quote to
you Rule 61(1)?
"The standing orders of the House shall be observed in the
Committee of the Whole House so far as may be applicable,
except standing orders as to the seconding of motions and
limiting the number of times of speaking."
But then, when we get to the general rule of procedure
within our House, which is standing order 1, and we get to the
point of something not being covered in our standing
orders:
"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or
other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in
force at the time" — as in force at the time —
"shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this
House."
Surely you cannot suggest to us or to this House that the
13th edition of May is the customs and usages of the
House of Great Britain or Northern Ireland at this particular
time.
MR. SPEAKER: That is very delightful. Unfortunately,
Beauchesne has dealt very exhaustively with this subject
...
MR. SMITH: Could I continue?
MR. SPEAKER: ...and found just as I stated.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker....
MR. SPEAKER: I'm quoting from Beauchesne .
[ Page 2331 ]
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, if it is...
MR. SPEAKER: I'd be glad to show it to you.
MR. SMITH: ...fair for the Hon. Members of this House to
yield the floor to the Speaker when he is on his feet, surely
it is fair for the Speaker to yield the floor to the Members
when they are on their feet without interjecting!
MR. SPEAKER: Plough ahead.
MR. SMITH: Can I suggest that?
MR. SPEAKER: Plough ahead.
MR. SMITH: I can recall yielding the floor to you whenever
you have stood on your feet.
MR. SPEAKER: Very courteous, indeed.
MR. SMITH: So could I suggest that in this particular
instance we do have a rule in this House that allows for a
Member to stand on his feet and ask that the committee rise and
report progress — or report resolution — and ask
leave to sit again? There is nothing in that rule that says
that that is the sole prerogative of the government or of a
cabinet Minister of the government.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. SMITH: When we are in Committee of Supply, I suggest
that any Member of this House is only exercising his rights as
an elected Member of this House if he decides to move that
motion. Now if the motion is rejected by a vote of the House,
then we have to abide by that vote. But there is nothing that
says the Chairman or yourself, Sir, can reject that unless you
think that that is an abuse. I think we have ample precedents
set out where abuse is clearly defined. One of the abuses is
where no business has transacted. That is established in our
House.
But, surely when we're in Committee of Supply and a number
of votes have passed, whether they be on the normal process of
the House as we used to know it or with the new closure rules
in effect, business has been transacted and it is not an abuse
of the Members of this House or the rules of this House for any
Member to stand on his feet and move that motion.
Interjections.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, you referred to other rules in other
jurisdictions — Beauchesne , for example — which are to be used when there is
no clear precedent either in our own rules, our own practice, or the British
rules of the day, namely today. I don't think it simply applies at all under
the circumstances.
On Monday, the Chairman of the committee made a clear
decision that a motion to rise and report progress would be in
order. He made that decision over, indeed, some objections, but
it was accepted. All that we ask now is the same motion be
permitted in the future.
You mentioned that the government has power. The government
has power, obviously, to put a motion. Any Member of this House
has the power to put a motion. I think, in terms of powers of
the government, you're confusing the power to have a motion
passed and the power to put it forward. In actual fact, every
Member of this House, under rule 62, has the right and power to
put it forward. Perhaps only the government has the power to
have it accepted, but at least we can put it forward. Certainly
....
MR. SPEAKER: I haven't quarreled with that. I don't know
what the Hon. Member is saying.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm referring to your earlier
statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Standing order 62 very clearly says that, and
I've not disputed that for a moment because I'm going by the
rule.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now rule 44, which you referred to, talks
about abuse of rules and privileges of the House, but on
Monday, yesterday, it was clear that the Chairman, by his
decision on the motion that he accepted, made it clear that
such a motion, put in committee, was not an abuse of the rules
or privileges of the House. I questioned that at the time. I
said in view of the words "shall forthwith" .... I questioned whether a
motion of the nature that he accepted could be accepted by the Chair,
but he did accept it.Therefore, rule 44....
MR. SPEAKER: And the House decided.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. The House itself voted over
my objections, but all I ask is the rule that was accepted
yesterday by the House over my objections, be kept today,
because I am willing to abide by the rules of the Chair and the
rules of the House in a matter such as this, or the vote of the
House, but I can't do it when, from day to day, the decision is
reversed. That is the dilemma that we face. Rule 44 does not
apply because the Chairman himself wiped out any possible
application of 44 by rejecting my points of order on that
matter yesterday. Therefore, we're back to 62, and 62 is clear
that a motion may be put.
[ Page 2332 ]
MR. SPEAKER: I think standing order 44, to which the Member
refers, gives sole discretion to the Chair to decide whether
the motion that is being asked for is really an abuse of the
rules of privileges...
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And he did that yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: ...and he accepted the motion.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, he accepted the motion.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Therefore....
MR. SPEAKER: Therefore he concluded, in that instance, that
it was not an abuse.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right.
MR. SPEAKER: But I would suggest to the Hon. Member that if
he is proposing that every five minutes he put the motion,
somebody might come to the conclusion — if he were
Chairman — that it was an abuse.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's not the point.
MR. SPEAKER: Therefore, the discretion is one that must be
left to the judgment of the Chair as to the motion. It doesn't
go automatically as you want, like a clock. It has to work in
terms of the particular facts before the Chair at the time.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're hypothesizing.
MR. GIBSON: I'd just like one clarification from you on the
application of standing order 44. I'd like you to clarify, and
to assure the House, that the Chairman will not, or should not,
automatically rule that a motion to rise and report progress by
the government is not an abuse of the privileges of the House,
whereas a motion to rise and report progress by a Member of the
opposition is an abuse of the privileges of the House, because
that seems to be the rule that we are drifting dangerously
close to accepting. I'd like Your Honour to clarify that that
distinction does not lie between Hon. Members on both sides of
this House because of the undoubted practice of this House that
it has always been competent on any Member to move such a
motion. I'd like Your Honour to clarify that.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would point out one difficulty we have in this
House that is not true in the Westminster House in regard to motions to adjourn
or motions of a dilatory kind. That is that in some of them, they can be put
with debate to explain why the motion is being put.
Here, of course, that's impossible. It can't be put with any
debate. Consequently, the Chair has to decide, on the basis of
the events happening in the committee, whether or not, in the
opinion of the Chair — it says clearly, "in the opinion
of the Chair"; at his sole discretion — the motion is
properly made at that time, or it's for a purpose that may be,
for example, obstruction, as occurred with the Irish Members in
1882 in Britain where, one after another, their attempt was to
bring the processes of the House and of Parliament to a
grinding halt and not permit any progress on the proceedings
which had been ordered by the House for conclusion on that
day.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly the decision cannot be on the
basis of from which side of the House the motion came.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. SPEAKER: Well, perhaps the Hon. Member would explain the
meaning of May on the page I've cited which was, I
think, 350, where it very clearly says the motion shall be that
of the government leader.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, that's easy enough to do because our
rule 52, which supersedes page 350, states: "A motion that the Chairman leave
the chair shall always be in order without...."
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is talking about a different
motion entirely than the motion that the committee rise and
report progress. I've tried to tell him three times...
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, fair enough.
MR. SPEAKER: ...that it's an entirely different motion, but
that you are entitled to put that motion.
MR. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr.
Smith) had a good point when he mentioned that if there is
abuse, then there is the prerogative of the Chair or Mr.
Speaker. I think we've had a clear indication in this House of
what the course of action is going to be. We had it from the
Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)
when he rose to try to get his motion through that the
committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
At that time, I think you'll also...as closely as I can recall in Hansard ,
he pointed out to this House that it didn't matter what the motion is or would
be,
[ Page
2333 ]
whether it's good or bad, whether he believed in it or didn't believe in it,
that we, and he used the term "we" — he doesn't belong to a political party,
so I can only assume that he was referring to "we" as the opposition collectively
....
Interjections.
HON. MR. LEA: No, he said "we." He didn't mean that. He
said: "We are going to vote against every motion. We're going
to have a division on every motion whether it's good, whether
it's bad." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in your judgment
you have to consider whether that is an abuse of this House,
whether a Member should vote with his conscience and with his
intellect, or vote for pure political reasons. I say that that
was a political statement. They're going to vote against every
motion, good or bad — division on every motion, good or
bad. That is what they're doing. I consider that an abuse, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SMITH ; Mr. Speaker, it's been suggested that there is a certain
discretion in the hands of the Speaker or the Chairman under standing order
44. I agree with that. If the Chairman or Speaker feels that there's an abuse
of the rules of the House, the motion to rise and report progress does not have
to be put at that time. But there is an appeal by any Member who can challenge
that ruling, and at that point they could request....
MR. SPEAKER: I put it to the Hon. Member that it is the sole
discretion....
MR. SMITH: It is on the individual Member whether he makes
that challenge or not.
MR. SPEAKER: May I put this to the Hon. Member? If you read
the standing order, it says: "... shall be of opinion that a
motion...is an abuse of the rules." It is the opinion of the
Speaker or the Chairman and that is not one that you can
substitute your opinion for. If it weren't that way, the
government could, every time that a motion such as that was put
by the opposition, overcome the Speaker and he would not be
able to protect the opposition on that motion. That is why,
traditionally, the Speaker is given the sole discretion on
questions of this type, this motion, that would amount to
closure to decide whether there has been sufficient debate on a
particular question before the House. It is not up to the
government to say on that motion where debate is still
possible.
But here we have, unfortunately, the situation that we're not discussing a
matter of whether there has been enough debate; the rule adopted by the House
last year makes that clear. From here on it's a question of passing each vote
and taking a position on each vote that is put to the Committee of the Whole
House.
On this point, I would like to give more time to it because
it's a very important decision. I'm not in any way saying that
the Chairman doesn't have the power to use that discretion
under standing order 44 if the declared intent of some Members
were to merely obstruct the business of the House. That's for
him to decide in his sole discretion; there's no appeal from
that decision. Therefore it's a very weighty one for either the
Speaker or the Chairman to make. He only does it where he
clearly sees a situation that everyone recognizes is an abuse
of the rules or the privileges of the House.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago you invited
Members to give you a view on how the citation of page 350 of
the 13th edition of May could be squared with the
question we have before us now. I would suggest to you, Sir,
that the 13th edition of May to the extent it would
apply would apply only if we could not find guidance within our
own rules and precedents.
MR. SPEAKER: We have no guidance within our rules that would
help us other than the fact that we must go on forthwith.
MR. GIBSON: I suggest to you, Sir, that we do indeed have
guidance. We have the guidance from the ruling of the Chairman
supported by a vote of this House on Monday. I quote again:
"The Chair ruled that the fact that we had reached the end of
the 45th sitting and that we are now in the Committee of Supply
did not preclude putting a further motion to report progress."
There is no indication there as to who might put that
motion.
I go on to say that it has been the practice of this House
to accept such a motion from any side of the House. Therefore
the precedent is clear.
No. 1: the House has decided that such a motion can be
received during the time that standing order 45 was in
operation.
No. 2: the precedence of this House has clearly established
that the motion can come from any Hon. Member.
I ask your Honour to put those two together. There is no
need to go back to May , 13th edition. The rules of this
House are clear.
MR. SPEAKER: The very point that the Hon. Member has asked
me to rule upon, and which this committee has asked me to rule
upon, is that precise point. I can't find any authority where
you....
Interjection.
[ Page 2334 ]
MR. SPEAKER: Now hear me out, please.
On the question where there is no debate it is an entirely
different matter than in estimates, where every vote is
available for debate. Therefore Members may wish, when it is a
lengthy debate, to have the committee rise. Here you have a
simple order of the House that the committee deal with each
vote in turn forthwith, and that they deal without debate, and
without amendment.
Now obviously that's a totally different situation, so I had
to look for an authority somewhere which said what should be
done where there is accumulation of votes that must be taken
without debate, and all disposed of so far as the committee is
humanly able to do so. I could only find the authority in the
13th edition of May , which is somewhat parallel to our
own development as a parliament in terms of dates. Using that
as an authority I had to come to the conclusion dictated in a
sense by the ruling of the learned textbook author.
Now if you could show me an authority of greater weight, I
would be delighted to consider it, but I haven't got one, and I
must, therefore, not make things up out of the blue sky but I
must look to the books of authority, and that is what I am
doing. I gave that reason when I was asked my opinion this
afternoon, and I must again repeat it, under page 350 of the
13th edition of May .
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You stated earlier, just two minutes ago,
that it was "an entirely different matter in estimates." I
quote your words.
I have examined rule 350 on the allocation of time for bills
in May , 13th edition, and I see that they talk only of
bills: "shall put forthwith from the Chair..."
MR. SPEAKER: Right.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "... as soon as the question which is
under discussion at the appointed time and which is then put
forthwith shall have been disposed of." It talks about dilatory
motions on the bill, or motions to recommit the bill, to
postpone a clause, or that the Chairman do report progress and
leave the chair, being forbidden unless moved by the
government.
The authority in May deals with bills, not with
estimates. I repeat your words, which I think are entirely
correct, and they are: "It is an entirely different matter in
estimates."
MR. SPEAKER: I think I pointed out when I rendered that opinion this
afternoon that I was drawing it by analogy because there is absolutely nothing
else that I can find that even comes close to it. But there you have in bills
a series of votes that must be taken at one time, and it says that these votes
must be taken in Committee of the Whole House at one time, and it says they
must be taken forthwith, just as in our case in 45 A, an accumulation of votes
that must be taken at one time, must be taken without debate, must be taken
forthwith, and by analogy I pointed out — and I used the word "analogy" — that
this is the closest I can come to an authority on this subject, and it clearly
said.... I will read it to you, then: "...on days in which proceedings under
the order are to be brought to a conclusion." Well, that's today. That's standing
order 45A..
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That was Monday.
MR. SPEAKER: That may well be, but the committee made a
motion, supported by the House, that made it clear that the
date when they would go on to these proceedings would be
postponed.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But we accepted the Monday decision.
MR. SPEAKER: On days on which proceedings under the order
are to be brought to a conclusion, or in some cases on any
allotted day, dilatory motions, which is the one we are
discussing anyway right now, or that the Chairman report
progress or leave the chair, are forbidden.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You missed a line, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Because it dealt with bills.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The line that you missed, Mr. Speaker,
read, "dilatory motions on the bill or motions to recommit the
bill to postpone the clause...."
MR. SPEAKER: That's right.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's the line you missed.
MR. SPEAKER: And this is not a bill. But by analogy this is
the closest I can get to any accumulation of votes that must be
taken forthwith without debate and must be dealt with.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your analogy is weak because of
yesterday's decision. Yesterday's decision altered....
MR. SPEAKER: If you have a better authority then cite
it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yesterday's decision of
[ Page 2335 ]
the House altered, for the purposes of this debate, the
meaning of the word "forthwith." That was the precise point
that we raised yesterday; that was the precise point
upon which the House voted yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: But you forget. If you read May , where
the word was "forthwith," the
interpretation in
May very clearly was that even though the word
"forthwith" is in there, the House may, as May points
out, make exception for the government on the business of the
time coming to its close on the appointed day where the
Chairman is to leave the chair on a motion of the government.
That is clearly in there. In other words, a motion of the
government can be taken. Now will you answer me why, pray, it
has such a rule and usage in May ? I didn't make that
rule or that usage.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, but we've got a rule here.
MR. SPEAKER: I have no other authority than this. The fact
that the House ruled that on a motion the committee could rise
and report progress on Monday does not answer the question of
who made the motion. If the Hon. Member is saying the
government didn't make the motion, then maybe that puts a
different case on the decision you are talking about. But we
are talking about a decision that has not yet been made. I gave
an opinion this afternoon. It is my opinion that what
May says at page 350 must be, by analogy, what we have
to do in this case.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A very weak analogy.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, might I attempt to answer your
question? The whole crux of it is, I agree with you, the
question of who may put that motion. Can it only be put by the
government...
MR. SPEAKER: That's what May says.
MR. GIBSON: ...or may it be put by any Member of this
House?
MR. SPEAKER: That's what May says.
MR. GIBSON: The whole foundation for this intellectual leapfrog over
the rules of this House 50 years into the past, into the rules of the British
House of Commons on bills, was based on the concept that there was no precedent
to be found here. That, in turn, was prefixed on the thought that because there
is no debate permitted under standing order 45, this is somehow different. But
I suggest, your Honour, that it is no different than at any time a motion to
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again is presented.
That motion, of course, is never debatable. But the function
of that motion, irrespective of the proceedings up until that
time, is to allow the committee, after a period of time and
after the conduct of some business — whether that
business be the debate of a Minister's estimates or whether
that business be the vote on several estimates — is to
allow the House to come out of committee for whatever purpose
to report to the House, to recess, to do whatever must be done
under the circumstances.
It is not a question of whether or not debate is going on in
committee at that time. It is a question of whether there is
business going on, and the business having been conducted to a
certain extent, that motion must then be in order. That motion
being in order, all of the precedents of this House, with no
need to go to the British House of Commons, suggest that any
Member may move it. I would respectfully request your Honour,
in a question of this gravity, it being seven minutes in
advance of the hour, to perhaps undertake to consider this
overnight and give us your guidance in the morning.
MR. SPEAKER: I would like to, as a matter of fact, because
it is a serious matter. I would like to look at it as fairly
and as fully as I can. But I am faced, as I said, with that
reference in May , page 350, which is rather hard to do
much with.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution
and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a number
of divisions occurred and asks these be recorded in the
Journals of the House.
Leave granted.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada