[ Page 769 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege, under Standing Order No. 71 of our Standing Orders, to move the following motion, seconded by the member from Burnaby-Edmonds, "That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having been convened in camera without authority so to do being granted by the Committee, and before the statements of accounts of the Liquor Control Board had been discussed or other vouchers had been examined and the Chairman thereof having, contrary to the rules of the House, refused to convene a meeting open to the public, in compliance with parliamentary procedure, and thereby depriving members of their rights and privileges, this House hereby instructs the Chairman of the Committee to reconvene, in open meeting, to consider such vouchers and financial statements as remain to be disposed of before going into camera." Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment please. Standing Order 71, as quoted by the member, of course deals with the matter of the rules of the House applying equally in the committee as they do in the Legislative Assembly, and speaks also of quorum which is not related to the matter of privilege.

Normally speaking, one would expect a notice to be given to the House when instructions are given to a Committee. Nevertheless, the honourable member has stood on a point of privilege and it would be the Speaker's normal function to consider whether or not a prima facie case of privilege actually existed.

I would, with the permission of the House, like some time to consider this, and would bring in my finding at the end of this sitting or possibly the beginning of the following sitting if that is agreed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

AN HON. MEMBER: May I confirm the statements that are in that particular motion as to the denial….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is not in order. Mr. Clerk.

MR. CLERK: Introduction of Bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: State the matter.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: The matter is the present hearing before the Canadian Transport Commission in regard to an application by the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company to connect with the Great Northern Railway Company at the United States border.

The urgency involved arises from the insistence by this Government that this route should be allowed to carry coal to Roberts Bank. The urgency has been heightened by the issuance of an Order-in-Council on February 2nd, 1970, by the Government of British Columbia, granting permission to the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company to extend their lines to the American border. The February 2nd Order-in-Council, while not a matter of urgent public importance in itself, has been added to by a letter sent to the Canadian Transport Commission by the Attorney-General, a copy of which I have just received. This letter to the Canadian Transport Commission indicates that the Provincial Government is in favour of the shipment of Kaiser coal on American railways to Roberts Bank. This letter from the Attorney-General creates a definite matter of urgent public importance in that the Government's action now before us threatens the economic security of thousands of British Columbia railroad workers and, further, the economic stability and potential growth of the town of Revelstoke and the whole Kootenay Valley.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, the adjournment of the House to discuss this definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I question seriously the matter of whether or not this matter is within the Provincial jurisdiction. I realize the member is making certain statements or allegations which have to do with the representations made by the Province to the Canada Transport Commission, but I would like, also, in this matter to enquire more carefully into it before I give the House a decision, to ensure that the matter is or is not within the jurisdiction of the Province.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the contents of the letter referred to by the member as heightening the matter of public urgency, is that the Attorney-General has taken the position that the matter is fully and wholly within the Provincial jurisdiction. That's why the urgency.

MR. SPEAKER: Now that I have this material, would the House allow me time to give it some study and I will bring in a ruling on this as well as the other matter that was raised earlier.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would also ask Your Honour to consider the matter of urgency. This is a question that has been discussed freely and fully by the honourable member who proposed this motion earlier in the House in these debates, and I would ask that the question of the urgency of the matter also be given consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, all points of the matter will be given careful consideration before a ruling is brought in.

MR. NIMSICK: It was just today that I got that letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

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

(Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs)

The Chairman reported progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, with the indulgence of the House I reserved my decision on a

[ Page 770 ]

grievance raised as a matter of privilege by the honourable first member for Vancouver–Point Grey. The honourable member first referred to Standing Order 71(1) which provides that the Standing Orders shall be observed in Select Standing Committees to the same extent as the same may be applicable to a Committee of the Whole House and then stated that a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing had been convened in a manner contrary to the rules of the House.

The essential question to be determined is whether the honourable member has a point of order or a point of privilege. In the Journals of the House, 1968, pages 134 and 135, I find that the Chair in similar circumstances considered what constituted matters of privilege. Reading in part from that ruling at page 135: 

"The 17th edition of May, at page 42, describes 'Parliamentary privilege' as 'the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of parliament and by the members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions…. The privileges of parliaments are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. When any of these immunities, both of the members individually and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of 'privileges,' are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called 'a breach of privilege' and is punishable under the law of parliament.

"In the same edition of May the privileges which attach to members of parliament individually are enumerated as follows: (1) Privilege of freedom of speech; (2) privilege of freedom from arrest or molestation; (3) privilege of access to the Crown.

"In Bourinot's 'Parliamentary Procedure,' 4th edition at page 303, 'questions of privilege' are described in general terms as referring to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the House collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character.

"The power of this House to define those privileges is sanctioned by the Constitution Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, chapter 71, and such privileges have been largely codified in the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, chapter 215.

"As explained by Dawson in the 2nd edition of Government of Canada, at page 399, the privileges of the individual member are primarily designed to enable the member to attend his parliamentary duties without interference and to encourage members to speak and act freely without fear Of undesirable consequences."

As I have earlier indicated, the honourable member based his grievance on an alleged breach of Standing Order 71(1) and the motion offered by him addresses itself to procedures "contrary to the rules of the House."

I must therefore conclude that the issue is clearly a point of order and not a point of privilege. Points of order must, of course, be resolved in the Committee and not in the House. Reference Journals, 1968, page 52.

Mr. Speaker left the chair at 6 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

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

(Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs and of the Department of Public Works)

The Committee reported Resolutions 194 to 198 inclusive, and Resolutions 238 to 243, inclusive.

The House proceeded to the Order "Private Bills."

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 50) intituled An Act to Amend the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company Act.

Bill (No. 51) intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

Bill (No. 52) intituled An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company.

Bill (No. 54) intituled An Act Respecting Yorkshire Trust Company.

Mr. J. Chabot presented the Report of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, as follows: 

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries begs leave to report as follows: 

Pursuant to motion of February 24, 1970, your Committee was ordered convened to study the following matter: 

Resolved, That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries to receive and study the following reports from the Forest Service: 

(1) Slash-burning in the Interior:

(2) Damage to forest values by mining development:

(3) Application of the 30-50 per cent contractor clauses in tree-farm licences.

Also to consider and report to the House on the total management responsibilities of the quota holders within any sustained-yield unit which is being cut to the maximum allowable harvest under close utilization standards.

Six meetings were held and representations were heard from the following: Forestry officials; Columbia Cellulose Company Limited; Rayonier Canada (B.C.) Limited; MacMillan Bloedel Limited; Weldwood of Canada Limited; Eurocan Pulp and Paper Company Limited; The Western Independent Log Haulers Association; Prince George and District Truck Loggers Association; Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association; The Truck Loggers Association; and The Independent Squamish Logging Operators Limited.

The Forestry Committee appreciated the cooperation of the Forest Service in collecting reports and submitting information on the various subjects.

Slash-burning in the Interior under section 116 of the Forest Act. The Forest Service indicated to the Committee that in 1969 slash-burning was carried out in an orderly arrangement with industry and that escapes were negligible and the volume of timber destroyed was nil. Cooperation exists between industry and the Forest Services on slash burning.

Your Committee recommends that the Forest Service continue to hold annual meetings with the Interior associations to assess slash burning guidelines on an annual basis.

Damage to Forest Values by Mining Development- The Committee considered the report from the Forest Service on damage to forest values by mining development, no representations were received on the subject. The Forest Service indicated that after a further year's experience regarding

[ Page 771 ]

submission of the notice of opening of a mine or quarry that there are now no undue delays in processing the notices through the offices of the District Inspector of Mines and the District Forester. There still appears to be a problem with timber being cleared without authority resulting from the mining companies failing to submit the "Notice of Opening of a Mine" or by failure to submit the notice in sufficient time prior to commencement of operations.

While the situation has improved, there is still a need for better cooperation. Your Committee recommends that the Forest Service in cooperation with the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, endeavour through meetings with the mining industry to reach a satisfactory solution to the problem of mineral exploration in forested areas.

Application of the 30-50 per cent Contractor Clauses in Tree-farm Licences. Your Committee appreciates the study undertaken by Mr. I.T. Cameron, Assistant Chief Forester, Operations, British Columbia Forest Service (Chairman); Mr. C. Joergensen, vice-president, Columbia Cellulose Company Limited, representing the licencees; and Mr. I.S. Mahood, owner director, Millstream Timber Limited, representing the contractors operating in tree-farm licences on the application of the 30-50 per cent contractor clause in tree-farm licences. Your Committee heard several representations on this report from the licencees and the contractors.

The parties concerned expressed acceptance of the recommendations with the exception of Recommendation Nos. 5 and 8.

Your Committee was unanimous that the contractor clause should be based on volume rather than costs. After consideration it was agreed for the purpose of clarification that Recommendation No. 5 should read as follows:

"In recommending acceptance of phase contracting, the Committee underlines that such contracting must relate directly to a particular share of the prescribed volume of annual allowable cut required to be offered. Within this context it is recognized that where 50 per cent of the harvest is to be offered for contract the licencee has the option of offering the volume in 'full contracts' or offering the same volume in 'phase contracts.' 'Phase contracts' should, whenever possible, offer a balanced share of the phases. The contribution of phase required to be contracted will ordinarily be measured by giving weight to the dollars expended thereon. In other words, if hauling is 10 per cent of the cost in a 'full contract,' then in determining the volume contributed by the hauling phase, the volume credited would be limited to 10 per cent of the volume required to be offered for contract. As a normal rule, where greater volume of contracting is done than required in a particular phase this excess would not be transferred to reduce the amount of contracting offered in another phase. In cases where this stipulation constitutes an impediment to effective planning of a contractor programme, for reasons of lack of suitable contractors, or unusual conditions prevailing within a particular tree-farm licence then the Minister may waive this stipulation after first hearing objections, if any, by contractors engaged within the particular tree farm."

After reviewing Recommendation No. 8 of the report your Committee recommends that all unsettled disputes arising between tree-farm licencees and contractors would be arbitrated within the provisions of the Arbitration Act.

Your Committee recommends the implementation of the report along with the amendment to Recommendation No. 5 as outlined.

Your Committee is of the opinion that the appendix to the report is not in accord with the intent of the contractor clause and recommends that it be deleted from the report.

Your Committee recommends that the Forest Service, at the next session of the Legislature, submit a report regarding the implementation of the recommendations so that a further review can be undertaken.

Consideration on the Total Management Responsibility of the Quota Holders within any Sustained-yield Unit Which Has Been Cut to the Maximum Allowable Harvest under Close Utilization Standards. Your Committee received one representation on this subject and, from the lack of submissions, it is the opinion that the matter is not a contentious one.

Your Committee recommends that a further study of this matter be undertaken next year.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

JAMES R. CHABOT, Chairman.

The report was taken as read and received.

Mr. G. Mussallem presented the Second Report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing, as follows: 

Mr. Speaker:

Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing begs leave to report as follows: 

Your Committee held several meetings for examination of vouchers supplied by the Comptroller-General. These vouchers were supplied from various votes on the request of members through the Chairman.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

GEORGE MUSSALLEM, Chairman.

On the motion that the report be taken as read and received, the House divided.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Messieurs

NAYS — 15

Messieurs

[ Page 772 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, at the opening of the sitting this afternoon I reserved my decision on an urgency motion raised by the honourable member for Kootenay and have now had the opportunity to consider the statement handed to me in accordance with Standing Order 35(3) together with the reply of the Honourable the Attorney-General respecting the present hearing before the Canadian Transport Commission in regard to an application by the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company to connect with the Great Northern Railway Company at the United States border. I have also examined a copy of an Order-in-Council No.332, handed to me in support of the motion for adjournment.

The duty of the Chair is to determine the urgency of debate at this particular time on the motion concerned, not the urgency of the matter itself, and an examination of the rules applicable to motions under our Standing Order 35 reveals that, in order to qualify, the matter sought to be raised must be of recent occurrence and raised without delay. May's 16th edition, at page 370, states that, "the fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has been continuing for some time does not in itself make the matter one of urgency." Again, at page 370, it is further observed that, "if the facts have only been recently revealed this does not make the occurrence recent."

The relevant Order-in-Council is dated February 2, 1970, and the reply of the Honourable the Attorney-General above referred to is dated March 13, 1970. Whether or not the said reply or the Order-in-Council were only recently revealed to the honourable member is, in my opinion, quite irrelevant in view of the parliamentary authority quoted.

It is also clear that while certain facts may have come to the honourable member's attention only recently, the subject matter with which we are concerned has been continuing for some time and the urgency of debate at this particular time has not been established.

Accordingly, I must rule the motion out of order.

The House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.