1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(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.