British Columbia.

• Author: Felker, Brant
• Position: ASSEMBLEE NATIONALE

A brief fall sitting of the second session of the 38th parliament commenced on November 22, 2006 to consider primarily the report of a Special Committee tasked with recommending a new, independent Children and Youth Representative for British Columbia. The sitting was intended by Government to last one day, but was extended to three days by the Official Opposition through a number of procedural tactics. These included: refusing to grant leave to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the Special Committees' report to appoint the child and youth representative; using Standing Order 35 to raise matters requiring urgent debate; raising a point of privilege; and debating on motions to adjourn and to recess. The fall sitting totaled three sitting days, and included an all-night debate on November 27, 2006.

Standing Order 35

On three different occasions, members of the Official Opposition rose under Standing Order 35 and sought to move a motion to adjourn the House to discuss matters of urgent public importance.

* Jenny Kwan (Vancouver-Mount Pleasant) sought leave to adjourn the House on November 22, 2006, pursuant to Standing Order 35, to discuss the shelter rate for income assistance recipients.

* Gregor Robertson (Vancouver-Fairview) sought leave to adjourn the House on November 23, 2006, pursuant to Standing Order 35, to discuss the need to ensure all British Columbians have access to safe drinking water.

* Leader of the Official Opposition, Carole James, sought leave to adjourn the House on November 27, 2006, pursuant to Standing Order 35, to discuss a pending vote by the United Nations on the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

In all three cases brought forth under Standing Order 35, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Bill Barisoff, ruled that although the matters were important policy issues, they did not, in themselves meet the requirements for an emergency debate.

Point of Privilege

On November 23, the Leader of the Official Opposition raised a point of privilege, claiming that there was a prima facie case of a breach of privilege by the Solicitor General. The breach of privilege claim by Ms. James alleged that the Solicitor General deliberately misled the House in his description, during Question Period, of the powers of the Chief Coroner under the Coroners Act and in regard to administration matters in relation to child deaths on an issue dealing with the coroner's office.

In his decision, the Speaker stated that...