[ Page 8761 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8761

Motion Picture Act (Bill 30). Report –– 8761

Mr. Nicolson

On the amendment

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Smith

Division

Third reading

Resolution 7 1. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8762

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Johnston

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Rose

Hon. R. Fraser

Mr. MacWilliam

Hon. Mr. Brummet

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly know that both sides of the House would like to express their very best wish to our very good friend the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways, the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser), and wish him the most speedy and early and complete recovery.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as well would wish that very respected member for Cariboo a very speedy recovery.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is an infrequent visitor to the capital and to this precinct, but one who is always welcome. I note that there is present this morning to observe whatever may occur in the course of the morning's business a very much the younger and by far the most charming member of a fairly well-known family in British Columbia. Would the House welcome Helen Gardom.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the 1985 annual report, with 1986 assessment data, of the British Columbia Assessment Authority.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

MOTION PICTURE ACT

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill passed in this House two stages in one day. I think this bill contains some rather dangerous portions. While most people would agree with the action that is being taken by the government on pornography involving children, incest, bestiality and other things mentioned in this bill, I do find that there are two sections which give the government almost the widest....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm going to move an amendment, Mr. Member; please be patient. We are dealing with liberties and freedoms. We've already had comments from the Attorney-General about what is happening to those freedoms in the hands of the federal minister responsible, Mr. Crosbie, who brought down his own version of what we have a right to view and read and see.

I would like to move, then, that this motion be amended by deleting the words following "that" and inserting the words "six months hence." I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: The hoist motion appears to be in order, hon. member. Proceed.

MR. NICOLSON: I have an across-the-floor comment. It's been asked if I've caucused the amendment. I have informed the caucus of my disagreement with other members of this House who, I guess, other than that, otherwise are quite unanimous.

I think this bill should be lifted for six months in view of the fact that it is a very serious infringement, particularly in the regulations and powers that are granted under this act. I think there should be a time to stop and think about how far we have gone. There's no question that we want to protect children. There is no question about the objective of doing away with things that tend to degrade women and create them simply as sex objects. But we have to look in this six months at how we should best go about that.

I think the things that we have to do.... I think that this is a diversion. I don't think it begins to deal, for instance, with pedophiles who exchange their little slides and very cheap and tawdry homemade videos, which are not going to be touched by this. Our reviewers are not going to see the kind of thing that we're aiming at. We are aiming at those people, but we will end up with the regulations in here which would virtually allow the minister to ban Mary Poppins and certainly to ban the Greek mythology of Pan and the Greek play Oedipus Rex under these regulations.

I think that I cannot in all conscience allow this bill to pass without registering my very strong opposition. I don't believe that we will hit the real targets with this bill. I think that we might sit back complacently, and we will have other incidents. There have recently been charges brought against a teacher in north Vancouver Island who used a home computer to entice children into his influence and trust. Are we going to ban home computers? Where does this end? The fact is that the magnets, the tools of this type of thing go far beyond simply regulating the things that are already under public view. I think that what we will do is put this type of thing back where it has always been: we will put it back underground. There will be less opportunity to have a window on what people view as being erotic, stimulating, pornographic, or whatever.

I do know, Mr. Speaker, and I would seek a six month.... I don't think we should proceed with this bill, in view of what is in the federal House, and in view even of what the Attorney-General has said: this is okay but that which is in the federal House goes too far. Mr. Speaker, you don't go dealing with freedoms like you're in the Save-On-Foods supermarket saying: "I’ll take this freedom and this one, but this one I don't need."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Flip-flop.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that after the relationship that I've had with that member he would treat this subject a little bit more seriously, and realize that there is a down side to what we are doing here. I have had the experience when I was a student of being prohibited from getting a copy of Fanny Hill. I didn't even know what the subject matter of it was, except that it was referred to throughout all of the literature on the origins of the English novel. I was prevented from reading a copy of that.

I've had other experiences of being the victim of censorship, and I do not give up these freedoms lightly. I will give up the freedom to see acts such as are specifically spelled out in this act, but I will not give up my freedom to see things which are not specified, things which are left unsaid but left to cabinet to decide by regulation, to change the definition by regulation and to add more prohibitions by regulation. That is the failing of this act. I would urge that this act not be read

[ Page 8762 ]

now but that it be read six months hence, because there can be no dispute about those things which are specifically spelled out.

[10:15]

Further, I think it should be hoisted because I think that this act might even fail because of those sections. It might fail to do what we think should be done because it is not specific, and when bills come up against the Charter.... It wouldn't be the first time that this House has passed legislation that has failed to hold up in the courts. We sought to do that with heroin addicts, and it was rejected by the courts. We sought to take away other types of things that went against natural justice, and it gave some very short-term political gain, and it gave the public an assurance that something was being done when in fact it was not.

If this bill were carried and then failed because it was attacked on those sections, it would not only defeat the purpose of this bill, which is to protect children and women and men, but it would also tend to demean the respect in which we hold the Charter, because if it was defeated on the basis of the Charter, we would then lose our patience with the Charter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience, and I'm not going to stretch the rules of the House any longer. I must express the regret I was not here for second reading, and that is on my head, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: What we are seeing is an expression of opinion with respect to freedoms and the right of the individual to seek the course of action he chooses. One of the most glorious and upstanding aspects of the New Democratic Party is, always has been, and always will be to respect the right of the individual to differ and to express his differing opinions. We have great admiration for the member from Nelson-Creston in taking advantage of that opportunity and expressing his views to this House. We wish that same prescription would prevail on the government side of the House, where free expression should be permitted to have its full force of effect in this assembly.

We again express our appreciation to exhibit once more to the general public our respect and admiration for the right to express individual views, and to express them freely in this Legislature without fear of any retribution and with admiration for expressing those views.

HON. MR. SMITH: The interjections at this third reading stage are somewhat disquieting when you look back on the history of the progress of this legislation. It was introduced on May 21 and debated in second reading on June 12; there was no division on second reading. In committee stage an amendment was moved by the opposition and, although defeated, some of the thrust of that amendment was adopted in an amendment that the government put which incorporated one of the concerns about freedom of speech. So not only in this chamber was there debate and general support, because the opposition did not divide in committee on the bill as amended, but before we came to this chamber there were a number of public hearings on this issue around the province. I don't remember that kind of process federally, but that's what we did. We listened to community groups, we listened to the women's organizations and the church groups that had views on this. Also we listened to the retail industry and the distributors of videos.

We did in this bill what the consensus out there was. Can it be suggested for a moment that someone's freedom is being infringed because the bill provides that we're not going to show videos that show sex with coercion; that we're not going to show videos that show incest or necrophilia; that we're not going to show videos that have bondage in a sexual context; that we're not going to show videos that have sex with children under 14; that we're not going to show videos that have explicit sexual scenes involving violence? Surely that has nothing to do with freedom. That has a lot to do though with responsibility and with setting some criteria and public standards which are the minimum standards of decency in this province that the public expects. They are the same standards that the industry wishes to have.

The bill also has safeguards for film societies. It has adequate exemptions for scientific and educational purposes. It is not a censorship bill. It is a bill to set some standards to protect children and to get filth off the shelf, but to have reasonable limits for reasonable British Columbians to live with. It is not a censorship bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, are we ready for the question? The question is shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 1

NAYS — 45

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated. On the main question now, the third reading of Bill 30.

Bill 30, Motion Picture Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call resolution number 71 standing in my name on the order paper. I move: "That this House does not concur in the report of the Committee of Supply with respect to vote 70 and the proceedings therein are declared of no force and effect and orders the said vote be referred back to the Committee of Supply to be reconsidered."

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to page 669 of Sir Erskine May's fourteenth edition, written of course by perhaps the greatest

[ Page 8763 ]

editor ever of Sir Erskine May, Sir Gilbert Campion. Mr. Speaker, on that page it talks about disallowance of changing amendments moved in the House. It says specifically: "If a charge is reduced or eliminated by an amendment in committee, it cannot be restored in whole or in part by an amendment on report. The proper course in such cases is to recommit the bill or resolution." It further says, without my reading so many of the other things.... I say that this particular motion is out of order because of the part which would seek to undo that which was done already in the committee.

The remedy is to vote for an amount in addition, if it is referred back to the committee; and it is in Erskine May, believe me. The committee has to vote an amount in addition to that already approved. In other words, we do not disapprove by some motion in the House or undo that which we have done in committee. We can refer back to committee, however, since Her Majesty has requested supply of up to a certain amount, and we would.... Therefore the remedy for the government would be to increase, I suppose, up to the original amount requested less $1, which means there would be two amounts that have already been approved for this. I cite section....

There's a great deal to be read, Mr. Speaker, on amendments. There's a further reference on page 705 to rescinding of resolutions and amendments to resolutions on report. It is outlined there and in other editions of Erskine May that one votes an amount in addition to that which has already been approved.

[10:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The comments of the hon. member are interesting, but they're specious. I draw to the attention of the House and all members that the House only received the report and never acted upon it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on that point the rules are very clear that you cannot undo anything without a report and without sending it back to the committee. You cannot undo a resolution in committee other than by referring back to the committee. You are trying to undo the resolution that was taken in committee. That cannot be done. I'm just trying to provide you with the proper forms and help you out of your own....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must advise that because of the unusual circumstances involved, checks have been made in other jurisdictions on this very matter, and it appears to the satisfaction of the Chair that the procedure before us is proper and that the motion itself.... The Chair is of the opinion that the motion is in order, hon. member, based not only on the authorities that we're consulting, but also on authorities at the House of Commons in Ottawa.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to our standing order that says that in ruling — and I would hope this is a ruling — Mr. Speaker will cite references and give his authorities, because this is a very important decision.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it seems to me that the practice of this House and of other Houses, but speaking only of this chamber, is that at some later point — it may be hours or days or weeks away — we deal with a supply bill which then sets out the days on which the committee sat, lists all of them. That practice has been in place for many years. And finally...

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not anticipating a motion, Mr. Member; I'm referring to past practice.

...we say that those reports be now received, taken as read and agreed to. Surely that is a very fundamental and final step for this House with respect to dealing with reports from Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD: In making your earlier comment, Your Honour referred to the House of Commons in Ottawa as having some authority. I want to draw to your attention that that is not so, and that we should not and cannot for precedence refer to the House of Commons in Ottawa, particularly with reference to standing order 1, which points out that in all cases not provided for hereafter or by other orders that this House makes, "the usages, customs and precedents, firstly, of this House and, secondly, of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be followed.... " Particularly apropos of that, Mr. Speaker, when the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee considered the standing orders a couple of years ago, the subject matter of whether or not we should refer to the House of Commons in Ottawa as having any precedence for us was debated and dealt with by the committee; and the committee unanimously saw fit not to include any reference to the House of Commons in Ottawa, because that would be placing this Legislature in a subservient position to an equal partner under the constitution. Therefore I think you cannot look to the House of Commons in Ottawa for any guidance.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on that point, I must also advise that Westminster has been contacted, and they concur with what has been stated by the Chair.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

The House has embarked upon a matter of some considerable importance, and the Chair will undertake to resolve the matter in the air in which the seriousness prevails. Hon. members, the motion declares that the proceedings relating to vote 70 in Committee of Supply shall be "of no force and effect." Stated in other words, it is as if the proceedings had been rendered a nullity. This means that the motion contemplates that vote 70 will be before the Committee of Supply as it was originally proposed. Full debate and amendments determined by the rules of the House will be available to the members of the committee if the motion passes.

Hon. members, the Chair feels that the motion before us.... The opinion of the Chair is that the motion is a valid motion and will proceed.

On the motion, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us.... I would imagine the government will declare it to be a question of want of confidence, even though it denied that the amendment in committee to vote 70 was a want of confidence, but was just some kind of technical matter. I take it that this motion before us is a want of confidence, and we're therefore entitled to express some views about whether or not

[ Page 8764 ]

this government has the confidence of this House or of the people of the province.

The decision to reduce vote 70 to one dollar showed clearly how utterly incompetent and ridiculous this government showed up with that particular vote. It wasn't a question of embarrassment; it was ludicrousness. Mr. Speaker, I put this to you: when the motion was made in committee on June 12 last that the committee rise and report the resolution — namely the resolution to reduce the vote to one dollar — it was a unanimous vote. Hon. members opposite got up and supported that motion to report a dollar vote 100 percent, unanimously agreed with the opposition, and agreed that it was a lack of confidence in the government, and agreed....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: One hundred percent of the members of the committee reported that they had no confidence in the government. Here's the Votes and Proceedings for that day, Mr. Speaker. I point out to you some of the names on here: Richmond....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: I'm only reading from the record; there's the name Richmond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: All right. The minister himself voted no confidence in himself — and I can understand clearly how he could come to that conclusion — and every member opposite did. So now the government is saying: "We were stupid the other day to have done that." But they did it. And now they're turning around and saying: "Let's reverse what we did." How ridiculous! Laughable.

That vote revealed also, Mr. Speaker, the true colours of this government, the true colours of the whole Social Credit caucus. We remember that screeching, near-maniacal declaration of the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), infuriated because he'd been trapped by his own ineptitude and his own incompetence; a victim of his own activities. He knew what was coming. He knew what was going to happen, or what was likely to happen. Let me point out to Your Honour....

MR. REID: You can't trust you guys.

MR. HOWARD: We'll deal later with the pretended pugilist for Surrey, Mr. Speaker.

On the fourth day of June, just a few days before June 12, a division took place in the House and the government had 21 members present. For the next division on the fourth day of June they had 20 members present. For the next division on the fourth day of June the government had 18 members present in the House, and I sat here and I saw the government House Leader looking around at his troops, counting silently to himself — 1, 2, 3, 4 — and he looked opposite, counted our numbers. He knew that they only had 18 members there on the fourth day of June. He knew that on two occasions in the past, in a vote that had taken place just the week before, the government had fewer members than the opposition combined, and they went blithely on their own way ignoring it.

They permitted — encouraged, I submit — members of the government side to be absent to go about their private business, to use public funds in pursuit of their private objectives for the leadership race. I submit that that's what they were doing.

Here's a government that has spent at least $50 million to $60 million of taxpayers' money over the past few years on advertising and propagandizing on behalf of Social Credit, and they were at it again. Do they expect this House to exhibit confidence in that tribe, in that gang, in that crowd which is all painted with the same brush? Some cabinet ministers — what do they earn, 70 grand a year? — are not dealing with public business, not here paying attention to their obligation to the public, but moving on, dealing with private affairs. That's what's involved, Mr. Speaker, in a question of confidence in this government. They've exhibited to me that no confidence whatever should be reposed in them, and that this Legislature should not vote confidence in them. They've shown themselves to be untrustworthy. They've shown themselves to pursue private interests to the detriment of the general public. They've shown themselves to adjust public policy to suit their own personal and private interest, and they want us to exhibit confidence in them?

Even the Attorney-General, appearing on Provincial Affairs the other night.... I watched him; I don't know who else did. But did you ever see such a shifty-eyed performance? I'm serious. Not once....

AN HON. MEMBER: You know a shifty-eyed person when you see one.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I'm looking at one right now. It was an attempt to use the provincial public affairs forum.... Not once did the Attorney-General look at the viewer. Why? Because he was embarrassed about what he was saying. I could understand that kind of performance coming from, say, a disbarred lawyer, but not from a person who holds the highest legal office in the land in our province, the Attorney-General. In an attempt to justify their own incompetence and their own mismanagement and their lack of attention to the public's business, he took off on some kind of attempt to distort what the realities were in this House. One of the things he said was that we voted against tourism, and he knows that not to be the case. He knew that when he said it, and a person who knows something not to be the case when they in fact do say it is classified by a word which I cannot use in this chamber and would not use, but everyone knows what it is and knows what type of person it is that does that.

[10:45]

We have a government, the whole of the government, that has been tainted and had its group mentality poisoned over the past decade. There's an analogy with the bad apple in the barrel, I suppose, that might be appropriate. When the one bad apple is removed from the barrel it is supposed to leave the remainder fit for consumption, fit for support, fit for endorsement, fit to express confidence in; but in this case one bad apple may go and it leaves the whole barrel of bad apples. In no possible way should this Legislature or the people of this province be asked to express confidence in this government.

The following day the belligerence and anger expressed in the corridor by people who identify themselves as honourable members in this House, the near-pugilism.... We all know that attempted or simulated physical violence is the last

[ Page 8765 ]

refuge of the incompetent: not able to justify their own doing, they take it out on somebody else, attempting to blame somebody else for their own failures.

The government chief Whip, such a miserable failure, along with the Government House Leader, in keeping the troops here, was applauded the next day by the whole of the cabinet, the whole of the caucus, indicating how much that group over there endorses failure. In no way am I going to endorse failure. I can do nothing else but vote against this particular motion and that way express no confidence whatever in this crowd of bad apples.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask for order during....

MR. REID: You don't have the guts to say that in the hallway.

MR. SPEAKER: And I would ask the second member for Surrey for order. The second member for Surrey will be advised for the last time. This time is the last time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand your feelings on this matter. I listened to the member for Surrey during this debate, and I feel that when people are threatened on the floor of the House — asked to come out in the hall and debate with fists or whatever else one might imagine under these circumstances — this is not something that should happen in a chamber such as this. We have very basic differences in this chamber. The differences are political, and if one side happens to disagree with another, then it strikes me that there should be at least some respect for that position. Earlier this morning we saw respect afforded a member of this Legislature for a position that was somewhat different than all other members'. But that's neither here nor there. It's a decision that should be respected.

As far as trust is concerned, I've been here about 17 years and have seen ministers go through what the Minister of Tourism went through last Friday: having a motion of confidence levelled at them for a particular reason. That motion of confidence was levelled because of the fact that the minister has not afforded this assembly nor the committee a look at the accounts of Expo. Pure and simple. That was the motion of confidence. We said we are not confident in you by virtue of the fact that you haven't lived up to your own statute, haven't obeyed the law that you wrote. If that isn't a significant motion of confidence, I would like to know what is.

They lost that motion of confidence. The minister was embarrassed, the government were embarrassed, and deserved to be embarrassed — absolutely the most deserving thing that has taken place in this assembly for an awfully long time; number one, by virtue of the fact that there has been no respect for their own legislation, and number two, by virtue of the fact that they couldn't even be here; they couldn't even get to the church on time, so to speak.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, there was embarrassment. Yes, there still will be embarrassment. We didn't pursue the member for Nelson-Creston's points of order, because we know that when we get to the end of all that, it's the numbers that count in this chamber, and they're all here today.

Isn't it interesting that if this debate.... Oh, it's such a piddling little debate. It's nothing. It means nothing. The fact is, they're in their chairs today so it must mean one hell of a lot. If this were an insignificant debate, if it had ever happened before in this chamber, they would be out and around. But no, they're here. I hope they sit through this debate and understand what incompetence means, and understand that a government governing 2.7 million people has an obligation to look after their affairs in this chamber first so that they can be seen to be looking after the affairs of the people throughout this province. Mr. Speaker, that is not the case, has not been the case.

They run a leadership race in the middle of a legislative assembly and say: "Let's get out of here." Yes, we'll get out of here in due course. Stand up and own up to the fact that last Thursday you really goofed. Don't start talking that somebody was lied to, or somebody did this, somebody did that. The numbers speak for themselves, and those numbers are 21 to 19. The Minister of Tourism, the most embarrassed of all — and should be the most embarrassed of all — has not shown the competence, the ability to exact from people who are there at his pleasure, at order-in-council....

MR. REID: Put it to a vote and see.

MR. COCKE: We put it to a vote the other day, Mr. Speaker, and we saw!

MR. SKELLY: He wants to roll back the clock.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Speaker, we did put it to a vote. We told you what we thought of the fact that the Minister of Tourism has not come before this chamber with a report from Expo, and Expo has been in existence for some four years.

Mr. Speaker, I know exactly the way the vote's going to go on this, having been able to read the government's position I think rather well in the papers and elsewhere. I know perfectly well how the vote is going to end up, but I just want the government to know that the people in the province are embarrassed on account of their government — the government that they elected. Regardless of what happens to your leadership contest, when it's all over, it's still going to be that incompetent gang trying to run this province, having run it into the ground to date and not able to take care of a vote in this House.

Why don't they own up to the fact that they don't know where they're going? They don't know where they've come from. They have nothing to offer, and they proved it last Thursday. They're trying to get out of it now by bringing their troops in and saying: "Put it to a vote." Sure, we'll put it to a vote ultimately, but hang your heads in shame. You have been totally incompetent. Mr. Speaker, what more can one say?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, this is a very historic occasion. Never before in the history of this British Columbia parliament has such a motion had to be placed on the order paper. As I read the motion, it basically states that this House does not concur with the unanimous report of the Committee of Supply with respect to vote 70 and that the proceedings therein are declared of no force and effect. If I supported this motion I would be doing a disservice to the whole British

[ Page 8766 ]

parliamentary system. If any member of this House supports a motion asking the members of this House to repudiate a vote which took place in this Legislature legally, rightfully and constitutionally, then we are not upholding the constitution of our province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MRS. DAILLY: That is correct.

What is the point of serving here as a member of the B.C. Legislature if we pass a vote unanimously and then sit back and allow a government to come in and, because of the sheer force of their numbers, repudiate a vote that was taken properly and rightfully in this parliament? Looking across particularly at the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) of this province, who is charged with upholding the laws of this province, I cannot understand how he could possibly sit in this Legislature and ask the members to repudiate those laws — and that is what we are being asked to do. There is no way that anyone in this House should feel they deserve or have a right to remain as a member of this House if they will try to abridge and repudiate the laws of this province.

I for one frankly thought that when that vote was lost it was over and done with. Now I find out that the government, in their desperation to hold on to power, has nevertheless decided to force this House into accepting a vote that was repudiated by the whole House. Is power so important to the Social Credit government that they are ready and willing to toss out all the rules of this Legislature and the basic rights of the parliamentary system? I say to you that if it's so important, if power means so much, you are indeed a dangerous government. Any government which believes it can come in here and, through sheer force of numbers, ram through something which has not been proven to be right, which is unconstitutional in the opinion of many people in this province and elsewhere in the country, is a very dangerous government.

[11:00]

If a government can put through a motion like this, we no longer have a democratic parliamentary system in this province. It means that if this government at any time is not pleased with what takes place in this chamber, it can simply bring in a motion to negate whatever took place by sheer force of numbers. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no way I or any member of this House should be standing and supporting this very dangerous move by a government of this province which is simply obsessed with maintaining power at any cost. I simply want to conclude by saying what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said: this is a black day for the British Columbia Legislature, and shame on you if you push this motion through.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to some of the grim portents that have emanated from the other side of the chamber about all of this, and particularly to go back to the resolution, which is a resolution that purports to nullify the report of Committee of Supply and refer vote 70 back to the committee for reconsideration. What does it mean to refer vote 70 back? Well, it means that the estimates of the minister's entire office will be reconsidered, and not left reduced to one dollar, which is not a reduction or a penalty to the minister, whose salary is covered by the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, but is instead a very unhappy effect on the people who work in that office — the public servants, the four employees who work there and who are victims of this process. It is a reasonable motion to refer that back to reconsideration.

I'm sure the members opposite, if they were seeking simply to express lack of confidence in the minister, which they didn't do by their motion, would not have reduced his entire office to one dollar, but would simply have dealt with the minister's salary — which they didn't do. So I know that they'll want to reconsider this, and I know that they'll want this to go back to committee, and they won't want the four public servants to be victimized and singled out; I know that. I know that when they search their hearts, that's the view that they'll take.

I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), with his usual lightness of touch. He has about as much sense of humour as a hippopotamus in a swimming pool.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: No. But to say, Mr. Speaker, that the vote here reflects confidence or lack of confidence in the government or a minister, when what it does is to impinge only upon public servants, by reason of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, which deals with the minister, is really a specious argument. I would urge them to reflect. Let's get back to Committee of Supply and deal with vote 70, and put this other matter behind us. We've had a great deal of fun and discussion about it, I'm sure.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: I guess that that really goes to the heart of the matter. The Attorney-General described the defeat of the government as political chicanery, and now he talks about it being fun. We're not here for fun, Mr. Speaker; we're here to do the people's business. We're here in what I think draws from the finest parliamentary traditions by which people have ever agreed and consented, and that is what government is about: those who govern subject to the willingness of the people to obey. And that is the paraphrasing of something else that might be found in Sir Erskine May in some of the earlier editions — subject to the will of the people. What we're talking about here is the will of the people.

Mr. Speaker, parliament is a very fragile institution compared to a republican system, which is nailed down, spelled out, checks, balances; three levels of power, usually at both the federal as well as the state level. In this institution we call on one person to form a government. It's winner take all. It is the absolute right to rule for a mandate of usually five years. We do not have the checks and balances, but we hope that in the balance of that kind of rigid system, we have a thing called responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could more have abrogated responsibility than when that person who was chosen by his party to get the call from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to form a government, in the middle of a legislative session announced that he was stepping down and arranged that a leadership contest should take place within his party, while most of his members were bound in this House. Yet his hand-picked successor was free to go out and organize and take over. That is why we had that vote the other day. That is why vote 70 failed in this House: because of that abrogation of parliamentary responsibility, where when you are chosen to

[ Page 8767 ]

be Premier of this province, you are the Premier of the province, and you have to put your party second. You have to think about the people; you have to think about continuity; you have to think about the responsibility which rests entirely on your shoulders.

This system in which we work.... We come here, we think that it is somehow.... It takes us a long time to catch on and find out that there is a very simple principle in here. This system does not work when people put their own self-interest ahead of the interest of parliament. This system breaks down when we cling to power in the face of parliamentary defeat. This system is a mystique. We know that we can study these books and we can learn how the system has evolved, but we know that emotion such as this can be brought in to undo that which was done, and no more parliamentary authority given to justify that than to say that we made a phone call to Westminster.

You know, why should we bother to read these? I would hope that the next Speaker of the House, whoever that should be, would rest easy knowing that we don't need any Clerks. We can phone the Clerks in Westminster, or we can say that we phoned the Clerks in Westminster, and everything will be all right. Ignore citations; ignore the system. It is a mystique. Unfortunately, by this act today, by this motion, we shed away more of that mystique. People will hold politicians in Canada and will hold our system in lower esteem than they have ever held it before. I hope not much lower than before, but it will certainly not serve to improve the esteem. It will not serve to maintain the mystique of what I have thought has been a very workable system.

This brings us closer to the situation, which existed in the Philippines, and it is one step at a time.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the election of Marcos was seen as a great victory about 20 years ago, but this is the way that you get there, one step at a time, and we are taking away.... If this government had called an election as did W.A.C. Bennett when his government was defeated, well, I would no longer be here; but perhaps the institution of parliament would still be here and it would be strengthened rather than diminished. This government has done nothing to enhance the institution of parliament.

When this government is gone, it will be remembered mostly for the fact that it hacked and chipped and chiselled away at the institution of parliament, and it always put itself first — always. It will be characterized by the lack of resignations that should have taken place or resignations that take place immediately followed by being put back into cabinet. It will be symbolized by this particular defeat, and I think it will be symbolized by the fact that the person who accepted the responsibility of leading this province for five years turned his back on that responsibility, not in the middle of the term but in the middle of a sitting of the Legislature, and created the chaos which led to the defeat on vote 70.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't believe I have ever heard such righteous indignation in all my life. You know, we're dealing with an issue here. There is absolutely no question about the fact that the actions on Thursday were an embarrassment. But I want to tell you they were an embarrassment to the members of the opposition; they were not an embarrassment to the people in the Social Credit ranks. Every debate in this House is important. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine grown, elected people hiding in tunnels, hiding in their offices, to purposely plan and plot some sort of destruction of a government? I can tell the members of the opposition that the people in my constituency of Surrey certainly look with disdain on the members of the NDP and the antics of their representatives in this House.

I must respond to comments made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). They cannot go unanswered. Words spoken in this House by members of the opposition, words of insult to government members, are never repeated in the hallways because they have no basis in fact. Only cowards use their legislative privilege to make statements against other members which if otherwise stated could result in legal action.

Are we not here to do the people's business? Is that not what we were elected to do? I would suggest that we get on with the job that we were elected to do. Certainly I take pleasure in supporting this motion so that we can carry out the job we were elected to do.

[11:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke will be asking leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MICHAEL: I would like to introduce to you a class visiting the assembly today from Hillcrest School in the community of Salmon Ann, along with their teacher, John Lucas. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. BROWN: I think before I start I should clarify some points for the last person who spoke, the first member for Surrey. I'm very happy to do this in the hall. First of all, there were no MLAs in the tunnel. If she'd like me to repeat that in the hall, I will be very happy to do that. Secondly, there was no agreement with the Whip that was broken.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold it! Order, please.

MS. BROWN: There was no agreement with the Whip which was broken, and I am prepared to say that in the hall too. I cannot, because of the rules of this Legislature, call the government Whip a liar. I can't do it in here because of the rules, but I'd be very happy to do it in the hall, because in fact, Mr. Speaker.,that is the situation. However, the opposition Whip is quite capable of speaking for himself and he will repeat that — and I know he has — in the hall.

I am concerned that what we are doing here — this precedent which we are establishing as a result of the government's majority being able to force through this motion — is a further erosion of the parliamentary process and the parliamentary system in this province. What this precedent about to be established means is that on any occasion when the government is defeated by a vote that it's unhappy with, the government can turn around and move a motion saying that the vote did not happen. What we are really seeing, if it is carried to its ridiculous ends, as this leadership race continues, is that the government can maintain one person in this House, that's all, be defeated on every vote and then turn

[ Page 8768 ]

around and put a notice of motion on the order paper, and after the two days have passed, bring its majority in and have any lost vote overturned.

It's not possible for democracy to survive, it's not possible for the parliamentary system to survive, under those circumstances. The point of order raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was a very valid one. It should not be permissible for the House to turn around and undo a vote that has already been dealt with by the House. That's a very dangerous precedent.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), aided and abetted by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), would like to pretend....

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, I certainly appreciate that every member of this House might well wish to debate this issue. But for the last ten minutes or so I have been hearing debate from this member that can only be construed, in my opinion, as tedious and certainly repetitious. I wonder if in fact the tenor of her remarks is in breach of our standing rule 43.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you consider that the member is suggesting closure?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are two items here. All members are aware of standing order 43, which deals with tedious and repetitious debate. The Chair is certain at this time that the member is carrying on in good faith. I haven't heard anything to offend that standing order at this point.

With respect to the member for New Westminster's comment, the member clearly indicated standing order 43, not standing order 46, which is the closure standing order. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds continues.

MR. BROWN: Thank you very much for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. In fact none of the other speakers raised the point about the precedent-setting nature of this motion and the dangers of it. Of course, one would not expect the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) to understand that. But aside from the precedent-setting nature of this motion — which is so serious that I can't say it often enough, whether it's tedious and repetitious or not — the question has been asked in a number of editorials in various newspapers, specifically the Vancouver Sun of Saturday. Where were the 16 members of the government when the estimates, dealing with funds for the Minister of Tourism...when a vote of non-confidence — because it was a confidence vote, and it was dealing with money...? Where were they when that vote was taken?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know how many members there are; you can't count.

MS. BROWN: Well, first of all, I have the Votes and Proceedings here, which shows that 19 government members were in the House. One member is a Speaker; that's 20, and the rest of them were not here.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, 15 members. Let's quibble over one member. Where were the 15 members?

I think the editorial in the Vancouver Sun of June 14 is worth reading into the record:

"The Social Credit government has only itself and its outgoing leader to blame for its ignominious defeat in the Legislature. The Socreds can huff and bluster, complain about New Democratic Party tactics, and offer all the excuses they want — but there's no escaping the fact that they were outvoted on a supply measure and it was because of their own ineptitude."

I would like to add to that "and the incompetence of their Whip."

"Giving themselves a belated vote of confidence can't save them from the mortification of being a loser with a 12-seat majority."

As we know, it's a 15-seat majority.

"Constitutional experts seem to agree the defeat of the government in committee is not cause for resignation. Even if it were, no one familiar with Social Credit's record of respect for parliamentary tradition over the last 34 years would really expect one. If the Socred government really respected the Legislature, it wouldn't have allowed 13 of its 34 caucus members to be absent in the first place.

"This is what comes of treating the Legislature with contempt by holding a party leadership race while the House is still sitting. Of the six declared candidates, leadership candidates in the Socred caucus, only two, Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy and Cliff Michael, were present for the vote.

"But whom should the Socreds finger as the cause of their embarrassment — the four other leadership hopefuls who were off campaigning...or Premier Bill Bennett, who threw in the towel and announced his retirement before the Legislature had finished its work? Mr. Bennett must have known it would be difficult to keep the leadership candidates from the caucus down on the farm in Victoria, especially while a front runner — his former secretary, Bud Smith — was out campaigning around the province, unburdened by public responsibility.

"Where was the lame-duck premier, anyway? Was his hand on the tiller? Was he there for the vote? No, he was grand-standing in Vancouver, seeking to secure the dream of the Site C Dam as part of his political legacy. So this is the way the Bennett era ends — not with a bang but with a whimper."

MR. CHAIRMAN: One item, hon. members. The House is well aware that a member's name cannot be used even if one is quoting a newspaper article. Please refer to the office they hold or the riding they represent. Secondly, the House will well remember that the term "lame-duck" was found to be out of order. I'm sure the members of the opposition are well aware of the Chair censuring that term when it was used by other members. So I would remind the House that that term, in my estimation, is out of order.

MS. BROWN: I would like to withdraw the words "lame duck." And the names which were used directly in the quote: I would be very happy to refer to the minister, the Provincial Secretary and the back-bencher, rather than using their names.

[ Page 8769 ]

The point I want to raise is that it doesn't make any sense to scapegoat the incompetent and inept government Whip. The real architect of the government's defeat was the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a reference to a member, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Government Whip?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the adjectives that preceded.

MS. BROWN: Incompetent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: Okay. What I'm saying is that the tendency on the government's part.... Incidentally, not one government member, neither cabinet nor back bench, has risen yet to speak in defence of the minister. However, that's incidental.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, the Attorney-General spoke on the motion, but he didn't speak in defence of the minister.

HON. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did you not ask for a withdrawal from the member?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard the member say yes.

HON. R. FRASER: I didn't hear it. I just wondered if she would repeat it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is satisfied.

I realize this debate has a tendency to be somewhat heated, but I would remind all members of the House that we should use courtesy and parliamentary language that's above calling each other names.

MS. BROWN: My point is that the scapegoating of the government Whip is not the way this matter should be handled. Of course the government Whip failed. The government Whip did not count the numbers; the government Whip did not ensure that there were sufficient of his colleagues here to win that vote. But that's not where the blame should be laid. Ultimately the Premier of the province, the leader of the government, is the person who is responsible, not the government Whip.

The opposition does not want to become a part of this scapegoating of the government Whip, but would like to go back to placing the blame squarely where it was laid by the editorial in the Sun, squarely where it was laid by editorials in the Province and in other newspapers: with the failure of that government leader to show respect for the parliamentary process and for the Legislature. The defeat of the government on that vote and their response to that defeat is a further step in the erosion of the parliamentary process and of respect for the Legislature and for the work of elected members in this province, and that, Mr. Speaker, is one of the dangerous aspects of this motion which is now belatedly being brought to the floor of this House by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom). The reality of the fact is that the government was defeated on a confidence motion on a money vote, and that's a reality which no motion is going to change. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can use all kinds of procedures — use or abuse, as the case may be — but that's not going to change that reality. This government was defeated on a confidence motion on a money issue, and this government refused to resign. That is the fact and that is reality, which no motion is going to change.

[11:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but having listened to the debate so far from the opposite side of the House, where they talk about the Philippines and self interest and so on and so forth, I believe that the opposition should realize that the public out there do not support you and your idea that their business should be conducted by trickery or by hide-and-seek tactics.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we did witness last Thursday was the one and only time when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) was able to get his crew together — pardon me, his caucus together. That is the one and only time that they have been able to do that, and why were they able to do that? Because here was a little game that they had set up where they could attempt to embarrass the government. All one has to do is take a look at Hansard. Take a look at the record. Take a took at their attendance. All around that day how many of the opposition were in this House for votes? We see 10 members, 11 members, 12 members. Out of eight votes we had no more than 14 of those members sitting in this House. They got down to as many as ten. And all one has to do is look at the records over this session to find out just exactly how serious they are about the business of this House.

But then again, Mr. Speaker, there's one very important thing that is missing in all of the debate, and that is the question of trust. Mr. Speaker, we do have Whips on each side of this House who, I understand, do get together and agree on certain things in the conducting of the business of the House. I am assured that indeed there was an agreement that certain individuals would not be here. If one looks at the record, it's quite easy to understand that if indeed you have any trust in them at all, then there's no reason why you shouldn't have had trust on that day. That is where it went wrong. It's not a question of how the business of the government should be done or anything else; it's strictly a question of trust.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order is that the minister is making a statement which he knows not to be true and which has been dealt with many times before, and he should not be permitted to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will take his place. That is not a point of order. If the member for Skeena wishes to rise and participate in the debate, he has every opportunity to do so. I see he has not spoken yet.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has? Pardon me. All right.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I was not party to the discussions between the Whips at all. However, the actions of the opposition would cause me to believe that indeed there

[ Page 8770 ]

was a trust broken. All one has to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at Hansard; it's right there. Look at your record of attendance all through this whole session. Look at your record of attendance during the debates on some of the most important ministries of this government. How was your attendance then? Absolutely deplorable. No interest whatsoever. A sinking ship, Mr. Speaker, that suddenly became awake on Thursday when they thought they had an opportunity to embarrass this government. A ship where half of the members just don't care; not around half the time, and that's the way it goes. Then we see an opportunity where not only can we continue our practice of breaking trust, but we see an opportunity here to embarrass the government. Well, certainly it was embarrassing. But believe me, I am not at all concerned about some little bit of embarrassment that is caused by people who have broken a trust. That's what it's all about. The sooner this House can start to rely on each other, the sooner that our Whip can come to our caucus and say yes, this is the way it is for today and we can depend on that, the sooner the people's business will be done in this House.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one out there listening to all of this gobbledegook of yours about the Philippines and about self-interest and so on and so forth. You're an absolute disgrace. The only time that your leader has been able to bring you all together was whenever there was an opportunity to break a trust with our Whip and come in here and attempt to embarrass the government.

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion wholeheartedly, and I would suggest that after over an hour and a half of debate — nonsense debate — we get on with the business of the people.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will come to order.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs mentions trust. He hasn't said anything about honour or integrity, or anything like that, but I think he implies all of those things. I'd just like to say that I agree that this chamber works better if people trust one another. But I was quite glad when the government was defeated last Thursday afternoon, because I've had three years — and I've had it up to here — with ministers being away on so-called government business so we can't even conduct a question period. I also recall that when we were having our leadership convention you kept us tied up here all you could. We have ministers in the House not even coming in here for question period because they anticipate a question, and we have to ring the division bells.

You talk about trust. Day after day our Whip tells us what the order of business will be. And then we come in and we find it's all changed. We are assured that the business of the House will be such and such, and then when we get in here.... And when we ask about it, the Whip will say: "Well, I was overruled by the House Leader." Or the House Leader will say: "The minister wouldn't come in" — or something like that.

We've been betrayed on a matter of trust not once or twice or three times. But when you got caught...

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It is true.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It is true.

MR. ROSE: Shut up, you guys — both of you.

...your way out was to say: "Oh, well, the NDP betrayed us." Not that the NDP outsmarted you. No, your excuse is that if this had been an honourable place, this wouldn't have happened to you. Your ministers are out chasing votes; there weren't enough of them here. If I had to make a choice between — and I wouldn't like to — taking the word of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and that of the member for Surrey....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold it just a moment. I'll remind the hon. member that all members are equal and they're all honourable. Any comparison would be odious and unacceptable.

MR. ROSE: I would suggest to you that they're both honourable members, but I would have my own preference if I had to make a choice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. ROSE: There has never been an undertaking on behalf of our party in terms of pairing or anything else to hold back our vote that I can recall.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, when a member of this side of the House is away in excess of ten days, it costs him $250; but when the ministers are away day after day and week after week, they're on government business. I could be away on government business as much as the minister, snipping a ribbon somewhere, and it would still cost me $250. The rules around here are stacked in favour of the government. Let nobody be in doubt about that.

They lost an important one and they're going to use — you'll like this, Mr. House Leader — the tyranny of the majority to get them out of a scrape. Someone else mentioned earlier that standing order 1 absolutely repudiates the authorities of the House of Commons of Canada. You were part of that committee, sir. You know that I tried to have Beauchesne as a reference point for precedents that were not covered in either May, the British House of Commons or any other legislature. I was overruled. So any kind of precedent or ruling based on Mitchell Sharp's inability to count — never mind the member for Surrey's inability to count — does not apply in this chamber. It doesn't.

Now there are ways to get out of this, and I don't need to assist the government any more than the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) did. The first thing would be a motion or a resolution to get back into Supply. Then there should be a supplementary estimate bill come into this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on a point of order.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, surely the comments of the hon. member are now reflecting on a previous ruling of the Chair. We're not discussing whether or not this motion is in

[ Page 8771 ]

order. He is not discussing the merits of the motion before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would have to agree with that point, hon. member. If the member for Coquitlam-Moody wishes to speak to the Chair on a point of order, that would be fine; but you have entered into the debate and we should be relevant to the motion 71 before us now, not points of order.

MR. ROSE: I am not reflecting on the Chair. I'm discussing the merits of the procedure that has been ruled upon so that ultimately, when this thing is resolved, it will be resolved unquestionably in terms of procedural matters. That's all I'm suggesting.

Anyway, I'm through with this pretty well. I enjoyed it. You had it coming. You deserved it. There was a lot of incompetence here and the thought that nobody would have the audacity to try to defeat this band of courageous men and women across the hall from me. You deserved it, you had it coming and you're going to have it coming in the next election too.

HON. R. FRASER: I'm pleased to join in this debate to support the motion by our House Leader, in fact to remind all of you that you should as well do that, and to point out to the members opposite that constitutional experts agree with the decision of this side of the House, in that a motion taken in committee is not a motion of non-confidence. Speak to some of the experts, as you already have.

Also you would recognize that a motion of a committee can be overruled by a motion of the House — obviously a very acceptable procedure. No doubt about that either. When we look at what the Premier was doing when he was not here, in fact he was out in the community creating jobs as he always has, as he always will, always doing what is in the interest of the people, irrespective of whether it's a five-year term or a two and a half-year term, just like all the other ministers in the government, Mr. Speaker.

Now the critical thing is this, as I see it....

AN HON. MEMBER: The sunset clause.

HON. R. FRASER: The sunset clause. You may be looking at some sunsets sooner than I will, Mr. Member across the table. I'm very pleased about.... And you, sit, might be as well. The one back there who's chirping away, you might have a better chance, but I think the first two I spoke to are going to be losers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you looking for a lifeboat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

HON. R. FRASER: Well, if it isn't the bird from Victoria.

What occurs to me, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that in fact the opposition had more people in the House than we did, but if they'd really wanted to press it and take it into the House they probably could have brought the government down. But they didn't. And one has to ask: why didn't they? They just left it in committee. They didn't want an election, or they could have had one. That day. Our members were in Prince George and had no hope of getting back in time for a vote.

There was not one single hope. Did they bring the government down in the middle of the night on June the whatever? No, they didn't, because they didn't want an election that day or any other day. And we can't wait for one, as a matter of fact. It'll be coming soon enough for you, because if you want it....

Interjections.

HON. R. FRASER: Well, they cheer and they yell like they did last week. But if they wanted an election they would have brought us down last week, and they didn't do it.

Now we can get on to pairing if you like. I don't mind pairing. We can do that. It's in the rules. If you're paired you're not here, you can't vote. We can do that some other day.

Interjection.

HON. R. FRASER: Well, as a matter of fact, you know, we should have more people in the House all the time. There's no doubt about that. We have to do that. But that party over there, the party of self-interest groups, will never lead. They cheered last week and they cheered today, but they'll never lead. The motion they should support today they won't support. And this government, no matter what we do, is always thinking of the people, always looking for jobs, always looking for new ways, always willing to take a second look and always going to be leading.

[11:45]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister indicates we could have brought the government down, but I also would like to bring forward the point that it was because of the incompetence of the people on that side, that they could have talked the debate out past the adjournment time and brought it back the next day. It was mistakes on that side of the House. But that's a minor point in all the hubbub of those dying moments.

The point I want to make is that all the huff and all the bluster that we've heard from the members on that side of the House over the past few days is no excuse. There's no escaping the fact that this government was outvoted on a supply measure and it was outvoted because of their own ineptitude and their own incompetence — the fact that they weren't paying attention to the business of this House, to the business of the Legislature. They had ministers running all over the countryside. They could not even muster enough support to get a majority vote on an important matter of confidence in the minister's spending estimates. Now they're attempting to belatedly give themselves a vote of approval, but I say they can't. They can't save themselves from the embarrassment and the mortification that they lost a vote of confidence.

Plainly, clearly and simply you guys lost because you weren't paying attention to what was going on in this House; you weren't paying attention to the people's business, and we had to bring you to task on that. It's as simple as that. It's a demonstration, Mr. Speaker, of the disdain that this government has for the business of the Legislature. A majority government — a 12-seat difference — defeated on a vote concerning spending estimates, defeated on a vote of non-confidence. More interested in chasing the leadership trail than in carrying on the people's business in this chamber. Where was your leader the other day? Where were all the

[ Page 8772 ]

cabinet ministers who should have been here voting on that issue?

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I want to say very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that those weren't childish games. That vote was a very serious matter. This minister has not obeyed the law; that's why it was a serious matter. This minister has proven himself to be in contempt of this parliament. He has not obeyed the law.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Both references to the minister will be withdrawn or the member will withdraw.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the fact that the member is outside the rule of law.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I withdraw the statement.

Mr. Speaker, the vote signifies the lack of confidence that the members on this side of the House have in this minister's office. I want to go on record as saying that we will fully support vote 71 when it does come up, because we fully support the concept of a vibrant tourism industry. The reason we did not support vote 70 on the minister's office is because he has not obeyed the rule of legislation, which demands....

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: We did not support the vote on the minister's office because the minister has not submitted information that has been requested over the past year, has not submitted the information required under the Financial Information Act, and because of that his office is in violation of established legislation. The minister has knowingly violated that legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That last comment must be withdrawn.

MR. MacWILLIAM: "Knowingly violated"?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Please withdraw.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. "Knowingly violated" is an offensive remark.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the minister, whether knowingly or unknowingly....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw "knowingly violated."

MR. MacWILLIAM: I withdraw the statement. But I say that whether the minister did it knowingly or unknowingly, there is a violation of legislation here.

I had no recourse but to charge the minister with a vote of non-confidence. I was simply doing my job in conducting the business of the people of British Columbia, by ensuring that the minister was brought to task for things that have not been accomplished.

I want to say once again that my colleagues and I will fully support funding for the Ministry of Tourism. We fully support the employees within the minister's office. But we do not support the directions that the minister has taken in refusing to abide by the rules of legislation and refusing to accommodate our requests. Until he does so, we will not be able to support the vote for his office.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to rise to support this motion. I'm going to take issue with some of my colleagues in that I don't think they have been prepared to give credit where credit is due. We were outsmarted by the NDP. They caught us because throughout this whole session we were under the impression that they were here to discuss the people's business, to discuss issues, to discuss legislation, that they were really concerned about that. What we didn't realize was that from, I think, the start of this session their strategy was to find opportunities to embarrass the government, to embarrass members individually — whether by truth or fiction, to find some way to embarrass the government. This fight, as their member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, their basic function is to oppose everything that goes on in this province, everything that government does. He said: "We cannot be helpful; our job is to oppose." Despite their opposition, the economy has been growing; despite their opposition, the social programs have been going on; despite their opposition, Expo has been turning out a success. So obviously the strategy had to be: since we cannot attack this government through policies or through philosophy, we have got a strategy. And can't you picture the Leader of the Opposition getting them together and saying: "Look, we have only two or three months in the session, and we've got to do a setup, and that setup has to work. Now we're going to have to very carefully decide when to pull the trigger."

If you want some numbers, look at how carefully the trap was planned. If you go back to the Votes and Proceedings, you find that in the early stages of this session, such as on March 25 and 27, you had something like 17 or 18 of their members in the House. Then you go to May 13 and you have 15 of their members on a vote. Then you get to April 15 and 16 — I'm only taking a few of the votes here — and it's down to 14. Now the trap is being very carefully laid. The numbers are going down, and you can see that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps I'm overrating you, but I see this as a brilliant strategy. You know, lacking any good philosophy, lacking any good policies to deal with issues in this province, you had to have something. Here is something that shows up.

Then on June 4 — notice the plot sickens — we have on five votes 14, 12, 13, 13 and 12 opposition members here in this House. As they say, the respect for this Legislature is indicated by attendance in this House. Now, somehow or other, last Thursday they were able to muster 21 members at the end of the day. However, during the day their expression of respect for this House was 11 members, and then 10 members on two previous votes. Now you have to give them credit. And then to send their deputy Whip to negotiate with

[ Page 8773 ]

our Whip to give the impression that their Whip wasn't here — that has got to be brilliant, I'll tell you. If you want some more indications of brilliance, they talk about attendance in this House. Well, right from the beginning of the session they have had a deliberate strategy of boring to death everybody on this side with the same negative comments, so it was either sleep in the House or go and do some work in your office. That has to be another touch of brilliance. This strategy, which I guess has been developed by your new leader, has to be brilliant: "We can't beat them on policy, we can't beat them on economics; somehow or other we've got to develop a strategy to embarrass them somewhere along the line."

I was pleased that the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) said that this vote last Thursday was not a childish game. This was a serious matter, obviously part of their total strategy. Then, as serious as that matter was on Thursday, he says we're more interested in our personal business — going around the province with our personal interests foremost — and he makes this big ploy on Thursday; then on Friday he leaves because he takes long weekends. In other words, he wasn't here to follow up.

Talk about strategy. I think you do have to give them full credit in that their leader developed a strategy that said: "Never mind the issues. Never mind the economic measures in this province. Never mind all that because the Socreds can beat us all the way, so let us find one way to embarrass them. Then we can go to the people and say: 'That's leadership.' We can take two to three months to find one moment to embarrass the government by setting it up very carefully, even hiding in the hallways." You think only 10 or 11 people were here during the day, and yet supposedly there were 21 in these precincts. That's respect for the House, Mr. Speaker. That's a wonderful strategy.

So they say: "Please, people of British Columbia, ignore the economics, ignore all of those good things that are happening. Please show us. Vote for leadership that was able to...." Despite all the good legislation, despite all the economic things going in this province, despite the success of Expo, that leader says to the people: "Vote for me because I was able to trap them in one moment of carelessness."

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) requested a specific citation, and I would refer him to May's sixteenth edition, pages 740 and 741 specifically, to refer to the Chair's decision.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:00 noon.