1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 611 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): … Daily Colonist

with regard to a patient in an acute care bed at Prince George. The

newspaper at Prince George was in touch with me this morning, informing

me that the gentleman in question is still in an acute hospital bed in

the Prince George hospital and that that particular hospital has 278

patients in it, today, although it's a 246-bed hospital. The

misinformation given to the House had a serious effect on Resolution

104 as far as the debate was concerned and the outcome of that

particular vote.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a breach of privilege has been committed

and I'm sending you and the Minister details of what took place in the

committee yesterday. I would ask that you find whether a breach of

privilege exists and, if so, I will introduce a motion requesting that

vote 104 be reopened for consideration and appropriate action taken

against the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): If I recollect, Mr.

Speaker, I said two things in respect of this subject. First, that we

had authorized the proceeding of the construction of additional acute

care beds and I also said that, and my memory isn't entirely clear on

this but, perhaps, I could explain to the Member that I was informed by

my advisers, who were in the House at the time, that this person was

not in an acute care bed. If I were speaking on advice that was not

accurate, I tender my sincere apology. I don't recall whether I said I

was speaking on advice but I can assure the Speaker now that the advice

that I gave the House was on the basis of the information that was

provided for me by my officials here in the House at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable Member speaking to the point

of privilege? I think there are two matters involved here. One, the

House, as such, has no knowledge of what transpires in the Committee,

as the honourable Member, I'm sure, is well aware. The other is the

fact that the Minister has made a statement on the subject which may or

may not satisfy the honourable Member. The Chair is not called upon to

rule whether privilege exists or privilege has been violated, but

rather, to say whether or not, after a motion has been presented, a prima facie

case of privilege does exist. Without committing myself, in that

respect, it would seem that the matter has been satisfactorily dealt

with.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point that I raised,

it is, of course, out of order for a Member to introduce a motion or

resolution that would reflect on a vote already taken in the House.

This particular vote has been passed and it cannot be reopened for

consideration unless an extraordinary situation, such as breach of

privilege, is found by yourself to exist. I submit to the Minister that

I quite accept his explanation but, nevertheless, this had a serious

effect on the debate in question. Had we known that the gentleman was

still in that hospital bed, then, a whole series of matters relating to

the critical shortage of hospital beds in British Columbia would,

undoubtedly, have been raised.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister.

MR. LOFFMARK: Perhaps I might assist you and the House

further in this by inviting my colleague, the Minister of Public Works,

to make a very short statement on the matter. I'm sure it would be of

assistance to you.

HON. W.N. CHANT (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the matter mentioned, I heard my colleague's advisers advising him, as he has expressed to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Honourable the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey has accepted the fact that the Minister was

speaking on the basis of advice.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): A point of Order, Mr.

Speaker. According to our own rules and decisions and the one,

particularly the first volume, at page 119, a personal explanation can

be made without question before the House but no debate should ensue

thereon. If there's a question of an erroneous statement made in debate

by another Member, it is not a matter of privilege. It is really a

Point of Order, or it is made without either a Point of Order or a

point of privilege, merely speaking to correct a mis-statement made by

another Member. If the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Opposition

wishes to take the matter further, he should, by notice of motion, ask

this House, on a motion related to privilege, to take some steps in

regard to the mis-statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I think the only doubt that was in the mind

of the Chair was the point that was raised by the Honourable the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that the particular vote that was under

consideration at the time, because of the information given, may have

been gone into in further depth. But, generally speaking, I agree with

the Honourable the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds that the matter is a

Point of Order rather than a point of privilege. The Honourable the

First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): In view of the statement in May

that it is irregular to make a complaint unless a Member follows it up

with a substantive motion, I'm merely giving notice that I am filing

notice of motion with respect to the matter of privilege that I raised

on Friday last.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that should conclude the subject. I

thank the honourable Member for bringing the motion forward and to

advise the House that the matter was dealt with in a private ruling by

the Speaker in his Chambers insofar as the Honourable the First Member

for Vancouver East is concerned.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

On the motion of the Honourable D.R.J. Campbell, the letter referred

to in the answer to Question 54 was Ordered tabled in the House.

The Honourable L.R. Peterson, Attorney-General, presented the Law Reform Commission Report on the Need for Frustrated Contracts Legislation in British Columbia.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.