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 — 2315

Point of order

Suspension of Mr. Bennett from service of the House — 2315

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 9.

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

NAYS — 13

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

NAYS — 27

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

[ Page 2319 ]

NAYS — 13

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

NAYS — 13

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

[ Page 2322 ]

NAYS — 13

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 subservient to the terms and conditions of standing order 3, being a previous standing order of this House.

Now I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is also subservient to the terms and conditions of standing order 37, 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

NAYS — 13

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 only after that should we reach back to the law of the English 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 1871.

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.