1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1994

Morning Sitting

Volume 13, Number 5

[ Page 9477 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 1, in the name of the Premier, on the order paper.

ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER BY SECRET BALLOT

On the amendment.

D. Jarvis: I rise after yesterday's adjournment to continue this debate on the amendment to the motion. I believe that what we are debating will lead to untold potential abuses of our parliamentary system. We in the Liberal opposition, as I related last night, are in favour of the content of this motion and of the amendment, but we abhor the method taken by this government to enact it. Madam Speaker, the government feels that no one can stop them. This blatant abuse of parliament will be the failing of democracy in British Columbia. We are today witnessing a serious setback in our system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: One moment, hon. member, until the House comes to order. Order, please. Please continue, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: As I said, we are witnessing a serious setback in our system, and this government is about to legitimize the fact that they can do no wrong by the sure way of their majority. We in the Liberal Party have asked for this modernization of some of the parliamentary rules, and we are in favour of it. This was one of them. But who would have thought that a Premier would have been so crass at a time like this, in midterm of his government, to give consideration to removing his appointed Speaker under the guise of parliamentary reform?

I realize that the Premier is not in the House at the moment, but I'm quite sure he's listening to me, so I will say this, my friend: this will be a bigger nail in the NDP coffin than you can ever, ever imagine. So I would ask the Premier: if the present Speaker does happen to be replaced, and you, sir, now have the illegitimate power to fire any future Speaker, how soon will you do it again? We can see no guarantees in this motion. How soon will you do it? How soon, sir? And what are your criteria for a good Speaker? Future candidates would possibly like to know now, in the event that this motion does pass.

Madam Speaker, as the member for Okanagan West said yesterday, I would say again: do not resign. You have right on your side, and you owe it to those Speakers who have preceded you and those who will follow. Madam Speaker, the Premier is marching, as I have said before, to a melody alien to the majority of society's ears, and he will go down in history not as a reformer but perhaps as a defamer of 600 years of parliamentary history. Madam Speaker, you will go down in history as one who had allegiance only to parliament and to each of its members and as one who preserved the independence and impartiality of the Chair.

Before I close I would ask all of the government backbenchers to look seriously at what is being done here today. Instead of modernizing procedures in this House, you are being led down the garden path into believing that this is a legitimate motion. If this passes -- and you know it is wrong -- think what he will do next, or at any time he finds something or someone else who is hard to live with.

Madam Speaker, you must be accountable to your office's rights and responsibilities.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, the first thing I'd like to say is that you have done an excellent job in the Chair. Unfortunately, you are about to be chastised because you have done an excellent job. You have been fair to both sides. There have been times when we had members thrown out of the House, and justifiably so; there have been times that I have been angry with your rulings, and I think I was right at those times. But, all in all, it has been fair. You have given this House credibility. Unfortunately, what is happening right now is that that credibility is slipping. It's not slipping due to your fault, hon. Speaker. It is slipping because of what the government is intending to do with this motion.

We have 600 to 700 years in parliamentary traditions around the world. These traditions have stated that the Speaker may be removed only in the case of incompetence, death or resignation. But none of these things have happened. Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, you are the victim of an agenda. This agenda is not healthy for British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, you are standing up marvellously under the pressures that are happening right now. As I said, everyone understands why this is happening. You have done the job marvellously. You and I were rookie MLAs. I saw the learning curve that I had to go through in the role of critic, and you had twice the learning curve. I commend you for your efforts and for what you have accomplished in a short period of time.

This shallow attempt at what we call reform is nothing but the government's agenda. If this government really wanted reform, it would talk about things like fixed dates for spring and fall sittings, free votes and electing the Speaker by secret ballot at the beginning of a session, not midway through. This session has started under a set of guidelines called parliamentary rules. Right now they're being broken on a whim of the government.

The people of the province look to this House for leadership. It is supposed to be organized and have rules. They expect us to abide by the rules that are set to govern us. We wonder why we have problems in the streets of this province and this country. Maybe it's because we are not showing leadership ourselves. Maybe it's because we don't abide by the rules that govern our own House. Maybe the Premier should show some leadership and withdraw this motion and abide by the rules. Put in the reform to vote for the Speaker of the House at the end of this parliament. Maybe we're losing some of our democracy because we're not abiding by our rules. Why is this secret ballot fine here in this House but not fine for unions? Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standard?

Hon. Speaker, you have abided by the rules, and you have made us honour the rules to ensure that this House remains organized while we do the business of the province. Why are the rules being bent? Is it because you do not fit the format that the government has in mind? We in this parliament don't have the right to bend the rules at whim. We have to change the rules in a legalized, justifiable manner. Otherwise, we are no better than the rest.

[10:15]

[ Page 9478 ]

The abuse of the rules of this House is deplorable -- nothing more and nothing less. As I said before, it is time for us to show leadership, and it's time for this government to show leadership. If they expect the citizens of British Columbia to abide by the rules that we make in this House, I think we should abide by the rules that govern our own House, and we are not doing it.

I would like to quote what it says about the Speaker in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It states what the Speaker is and what the role of the Speaker is. The government members should listen to this, and they might understand what they are doing and what they are playing with.

"From time immemorial, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been the guardian of its powers, dignities, liberties and privileges which the House has won for itself in a period extending over seven centuries.

"...tradition binds the Commons together with amazing strength, and so long as the peculiar and essential functions of the Chair in ruling by general consent rather than by compulsion"

-- and I'll re-emphasize "ruling by general consent rather than by compulsion" -- "in upholding freedom of speech without allowing it to degenerate into licence are maintained, it seems safe to predict that the proud heritage of seven centuries of liberty and progress will be handed on unimpaired to future generations of a free and self-governing nation."

Apparently this will not be the case in British Columbia in the future, because this government has decided to bend the rules. They have now decided to apply pressure to the Speaker and make sure that the Speaker is not independent. That's exactly what this encyclopedia is saying: that we have a Speaker who is independent and can enforce the rules for all sides. If the Speaker is not independent, the minority voices in this parliament will not be heard. They will be drowned out by the groundswell from the 51 seats on the government side. That would be very unfortunate, because at that point we are no longer a parliamentary system; we are no longer a democracy; we are a dictatorship. We cannot allow this to happen because somebody wants to abuse the rules. If they abuse the rules one time, will they not try again? What will be the next rule they will abuse?

Hon. Speaker, you are the Speaker in question now. But what happens to the next Speaker when he or she comes in conflict with the government? Will the same thing happen? Will the rule book be set off to the side? Will this government then force that person from the seat and put whomever they want in?

Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, you are the focus of attention here, but in reality you shouldn't be. The focus of attention is the rules that govern this House. That is what we should be talking about: the bending of the rules that govern our display here. Hon. Speaker, you have become the focus. I guess you can thank your lucky stars that beheading has gone by the wayside and that we are only talking about your demise from that chair into the back benches, or wherever the government would see fit to send you into your purgatory.

This has got to cease now. We cannot allow a government body to play with the rules that govern us as a democracy. What is going on in this House is reprehensible. Unfortunately, the government backbenchers just sit idly by. They're not looking beyond the agenda and the personalities. Look to what governs us; look to the rules of this House. Read what parliament is. Read what democracy is, and then realize that that is what you're tampering with.

Hon. Speaker, we cannot allow this to happen. As the Speaker and senior executive officer of the House, you are a servant of the House. But you are not the servant of the government. You are a servant of the people of British Columbia, and so your responsibility is to the people of British Columbia. I sincerely hope that you will not even think about resigning. You have done a fine job here and, as I said, your responsibility is to the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to read one more quote from 200 years ago -- 1796, to be exact. It is from a poem by Robbie Burns. I can't mimic the brogue, but I will read one stanza from the poem just the same. It is called, "Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation." Maybe the government members and members of this parliament should listen to these words because there is something to be learned. The poem goes:

O, would, or I had seen the day That Treason thus could sell us, My auld grey head had lien in clay Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace! But pith and power, till my last hour I'll mak this declaration: -- 'We're bought and sold for English gold' -- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

I do hope that the members of this House think about those words. Two hundred years ago these games were being played, and 200 years later you would have thought we would have learned something. It's about time that we take this as food for thought and maybe think about what we're doing in this House and about what we're doing to democracy. The final outcome of what is happening here will be the chipping away at the government that governs us.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Again, I regret to interrupt you. I would ask members who are having other conversations to please have them outside the chamber so that everyone can hear the debate.

Please continue, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: I'll just finish by saying that I hope this government thinks about how they are bending the rules, how they are affecting democracy, what their responsibility is and what a disastrous course they are guiding for this province.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, members on the opposition benches have made a lot of assumptions and presumptions as to what might occur. Speaking purely legalistically, the mechanism in this motion would be implemented should a vacancy occur. The member who just finished speaking indicated, hon. Speaker, that you have become the focus. It's unfortunate, and I'm saddened and shocked that many members who spoke from the opposition benches have made you the focus. Hon. Speaker, the issue is not you; the issue is the hypocrisy of members on opposition benches...

Interjection.

U. Dosanjh: ...who actually interrupt others when they're trying to speak and make a point. I have sat here for many hours listening -- religiously, I might add -- to the speeches made by the opposition yesterday and today. I think they should extend the same courtesy to a member who has paid attention to whatever has come forth from that side of the House.

[ Page 9479 ]

Let me basically address the amendment. I'm not going to speak on the main motion at this time; I will do so later on. The section that's basically the subject of this amendment reads: "Where there is, or is to be, a vacancy...." Under those circumstances, the House shall proceed to elect one of its members to be Speaker. The amendment is directed at the words: "Where there is, or is to be, a vacancy..." for some reasons "...or for any other reason.... " Those are the words that are the subject of this amendment.

The amendment put forth by the opposition is completely lacking in wisdom and foresight. The motion put forth by the opposition does not take into account all the possibilities and eventualities that can occur or all the various things that can happen to a Speaker. For instance, a Speaker could be incapacitated either mentally or physically and be completely unable to carry out the function of his or her position. There may be many other reasons that might come into play, so that an election may be required. The opposition amendment basically seeks to limit the election of the Speaker to two eventualities: (1) the Speaker has passed away; (2) the House has passed a motion of non-confidence. Shall we make an incapacitated Speaker -- either physically or mentally -- the subject of a non-confidence motion before we can elect another Speaker? Are we going to visit indignities upon an individual who can neither speak -- if there is mental or physical incapacitation -- nor come and address the chamber in any way, shape or form? The amendment put forth by the opposition is shortsighted, has not been well thought out and ought to be soundly defeated so that we can get back to the debate on the main motion. I will have a lot more to say on that.

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, I hope all members recognize my emphasis on the "honourable." I sometimes question whether the motives of this government are honourable.

I'm pleased that at least we have heard from a backbench member of the government. I thought that they were being muzzled completely, but perhaps we can draw them into this debate. It's important that all parliamentarians not only listen to the arguments that centre around the Premier's motion but also participate and let their feelings be known on this important subject.

The member who spoke before me -- as I say, at least we did draw him out and get his thoughts on our amendment -- claims that the opposition amendment is lacking in wisdom and foresight. I would point out that the member goes on to deal with things that are already in the standing orders, such as the mental and physical incapacity of a Speaker. I fail to see the argument as to why he questions the authenticity of our amendment.

What we are trying to do as a second-best procedure is tidy up a very unfortunate motion of the Premier. Because at the end of the day -- and it may not be this day by the way, hon. members, but the end of some day -- when we deal with this motion through a vote, presumably the overwhelming numbers of this government will see this motion put into place. Of course, what happens after that remains to be seen. We will have to deal with that when and if it happens.

Let me address not only the content of the motion itself but also the rationale behind our amendment. We have to question the motives of the Premier's motion itself. When he introduced the motion yesterday, he stated very briefly that reform of parliament was behind the motion. With respect to the Premier, I would have to say that that is nonsense. Why are we, in the first few days of the third session of the thirty-fifth parliament, dealing with one item of reform only -- electing a Speaker -- whether that be this week, next week, the end of this parliament or the thirty-sixth parliament? Why are we dealing with an unprecedented motion that the Speaker be removed from the chair and replaced during the life of a parliament? That is unprecedented in British parliamentary history.

Some previous speakers talked about the history of the Speaker and beheading and other unfortunate things that may befall a Speaker. We're obviously not getting into the literal sense of beheading, but if all else fails, perhaps this government will have to introduce another motion to deal with what they perceive to be a problem. We in the opposition have no understanding of what the difficulty is with this Speaker, if indeed that's the motive behind this motion. We have been more than pleased with the energy, hard work and impartiality of this Speaker in particular -- and any Speaker must have those characteristics. Again, I have to question the motives behind this alleged reform of the standing orders.

[10:30]

Parliamentary reform is not a piecemeal exercise. In particular, we don't bring in one revision to the standing orders that is an affront both to parliamentary tradition and to this House. I suggest that it is an affront to each and every one of us that we even consider entertaining this motion -- let alone, heaven forbid, passing it. We elected our Speaker for the life of the thirty-fifth parliament -- not for part of it, not for two sessions only, not for even the suggestion that the Speaker be replaced. However, what do we see from the Premier and his Brutus-like friends?

The suggestion, which is built into this motion, is that the current Speaker be replaced upon the passing of the motion, and we go to secret ballot -- all under the so-called guise of parliamentary reform. The motion which we have proposed through amendment, that it be changed.... And as I say, it's a second-best approach, because we obviously have a great deal of discomfort with the motion itself. The words in question in subsection 11(2) of the motion of the Premier, in particular "or for any other reason", are the ones we would like to see deleted and replaced through our amendment, because "for any other reason" would suggest any other reason, including some which are unstated, and only through suspicion and innuendo could we even speculate as to what they may be.

It is unacceptable that a Speaker of any parliament -- and I would suggest in particular, this one -- even face the prospect of having to go through this unsettling exercise. We cannot hope to run this parliament in any satisfactory way by having a cloud hanging over the person in the chair, because the business of parliament must be run through an effective and impartial Chair. I suggest, hon. Speaker, that through the motion that the Premier has introduced, impartiality will be cast aside. And I'm not even suggesting that if we pass this motion we will then be voting for a new Speaker. After all, there still must be a vacancy in the chair, and I'm hopeful that will not occur in this parliament. But again, there's an insidious nature to the motion. That's why I suggest we must at least seriously consider the amendment, and hopefully put some improvement into a very poorly-thought-out and ill-conceived motion.

Putting aside for a moment the regrettable nature of the motion and our reasoned amendment -- and, hon. members, it is a reasoned amendment and will hopefully put something right into a very unfortunate exercise -- what result will befall this House if the motion passes as presented by the Premier? Will it simply be inserted into Standing Orders as No. 11? Members will recall that yesterday we in the opposition suggested this motion was 

[ Page 9480 ]

out of order in the first place, given that there is currently no standing order 11 in the rules. Will the life of this parliament carry on as usual if this motion goes through, amended or otherwise?

Well, I doubt it, hon. Speaker. Presumably the Premier, in his zealous pursuit of reform, has extracted from the Speaker a commitment to resign. That is my interpretation behind this motion. Otherwise, it is at best an academic exercise. If indeed our hon. Speaker has given the Premier a commitment to resign, then we have all been compromised by that suggestion. Otherwise, why are we changing the process of electing a Speaker now, in the third session of this parliament?

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Vancouver-Kensington.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of remark I was referring to that has been made over and over again from the opposition benches, and it casts aspersions on the integrity of your office and your person. I would ask that those kinds of remarks not be allowed to occur, because they make assumptions and presumptions. You yourself have not said a thing about that issue. I'm concerned that by doing what the opposition has been doing -- with the exception of a couple of members who have spoken rather decorously -- they are bringing into disrepute the office of the Speaker and your person. I wish that it would stop.

The Speaker: On the point of order, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: It's very clear, if the member for Vancouver-Kensington would wake up his ears, that this particular motion put forward by the Premier implies non-confidence in the Speaker. I wish that member would listen.

The Speaker: I thank both hon. members for their submissions on the points of order. As all members well know, in debate it is unparliamentary to impute improper motives to any other member of the House. While this may be a sensitive debate, I'm sure that members will choose their words carefully in entering into this debate.

J. Dalton: The point of order that the hon. member opposite raised is obviously one with which I and the opposition take issue. However, I will not comment on that.

I simply suggest to you, given the unprecedented nature of this motion, that.... Remember, hon. members, we're debating only one potential reform of the standing orders. The opposition has suggested that there are many, many things in the orders that need to be revised. Why today, in the first few days of the thirty-fifth parliament, third session, are we debating only one? I think it is fair comment to read into the Premier's motion itself that there is some background that we should at least be entitled to speculate on.

I'm not suggesting that the hon. Speaker will be resigning. However, I am suggesting that if we pass this motion the opportunity for replacing the Speaker during the life of this parliament is certainly opened up. That indeed is most unfortunate, given that it is unprecedented. Why are we not waiting until the end of this thirty-fifth parliament to pass this motion? Why are we not introducing it at the start of the thirty-sixth parliament? Why are we doing it in the first few days of the third session?

Again, I am only suggesting through inference. I think it is fair to read into this motion, even though it is not stated, that the government has a game plan in mind. It is certainly not one the opposition can endorse; it is certainly not one the people of this province should in any way feel comfortable with. If the government members feel that that is unfair comment, so be it, but I think it is a very valid comment.

Instead of dealing with this motion and with our amendment, which we are now speaking to, why do we not deal with these items later? As the opposition has suggested, why do we not deal with as a package the many needed revisions to the standing orders of the B.C. Legislature? We have been pressing for many months now, with absolutely no reaction from the government side, as to needed reform of parliament. We proposed a series of meaningful and long-overdue changes. What we're trying to do today is at least address one, and put some improvement on something which we all know needs improvement. For example, we are suggesting in our package of reform that fixed dates for spring and fall sessions of the Legislature be set. That would take away the uncertainty as to when the session would begin and when it would end.

For the Premier to bring in only one motion dealing with only one revision is certainly uncalled for. If, for example, we could put the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform to work to do something meaningful, that committee could sit down and go over many, many amendments that may be needed, and then bring those to this parliament in the form of recommendations. Then at least all sides of the House would feel comfortable that our approach is impartial and warranted. But it is totally unwarranted and certainly not impartial for the Premier, the head of this government, to introduce this motion at this time.

We cannot entertain the possibility that if we pass this motion, we're going to have to go through the exercise of changing the Speaker. There is no justification for that. If the government is suggesting through this motion that our current Speaker has not been impartial, then I would like to hear them say that. There's certainly no evidence on our side that that is so. If the government is suggesting that a change in personnel is in order, as with their cabinet last September, then let them say so. But let us not go through the unfortunate exercise that is facing us today.

There is no justification for the Speaker to be replaced or for questioning the impartiality of the Speaker. If we go through this exercise, perhaps one day the Premier will put another replacement before the House. By the way, that may make all government members feel uncomfortable, because if a Speaker can be replaced today, who knows who may be replaced tomorrow. Certainly some of the cabinet ministers should take that to heart.

There are many other things that the opposition has in mind in the way of reform. Instead of doing this piecemeal, in an unprecedented exercise of changing only one standing order, we should be considering an entire package of reform. I can assure you that the opposition will be pressing for that in the days and years ahead.

When the Premier introduced this motion yesterday, he spoke of reform. While we all advocate reform, no one on this side of the House advocates sabotage. I'm suggesting that there's a form of sabotage built into this motion. A Speaker must be independent. If I may cite Erskine May, a noted authority on parliamentary procedure, on page 18....

G. Wilson: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I realize how difficult it is for you to preside over this, but we are actually on an amendment. I'm well aware that there are many 

[ Page 9481 ]

amendments that may come forward. If we wish to have wide-ranging debate on every amendment, we can protract this debate for weeks and therefore stall the urgent business of the people of this province. It would seem to me that we have a motion before us that can be properly amended, and we should seek to amend it. We should move forward with those amendments and either defeat this motion or not. For us to protract this debate for any length of time because of a wide-ranging allowance is generally a disservice not only to the Speaker but, more specifically, to the people of this province.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his point of order, which is well taken. Perhaps we have been straying a little wide of the amendment. For the benefit of the House I could read the amendment that we are debating at this point. I ask hon. members to try to address their comments to the amendment, recognizing of course that they will still have the opportunity to speak to the main motion. The amendment before you is: "That section 11(2) of the motion before this Legislative Assembly be amended by the deletion of the words 'or for any other reason' and the insertion of the following therefor: 'the Speaker has passed away or the House has passed a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker'."

With that I ask the hon. member to continue his comments.

J. Dalton: The point made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast certainly has some merit, although I would suggest that if we are going to, in essence, cave in and not entertain meaningful amendments to this motion... At the end of the day, of course, this motion is going to go through, given the weight of numbers on the side opposite.

[10:45]

I was just about to cite from Sir Erskine May. Centring on the words that the opposition would delete from this motion, "or for any other reason," I'm suggesting that if they are not deleted, then the very things that parliamentarians have recognized for 600 or 700 years will be compromised by the wording of this motion. For example, citing from Sir Erskine May: "To ensure the independence of Mr. Speaker" -- admittedly, hon. Speaker, perhaps the wording of Sir Erskine May is a bit outdated, but we have to live with it for now -- "his salary is a charge upon the consolidated fund and so not subject to annual approval by parliament." That certainly demonstrates the impartiality of any Speaker of any parliament. This motion will severely compromise the impartiality of any Speaker of this parliament, certainly, or any other B.C. parliament.

Coming to the opposition amendment, I suggest again that the words that we would delete, "or for any other reason," bring into very serious question the future of any Speaker who may take the chair -- remembering, hon. members, that we elected this Speaker, and that we will elect any future Speakers. In the choice of each and every one of the 75 of us -- not the choice of the Premier, of the cabinet or of the NDP caucus -- independence must be maintained. I am suggesting, speaking in particular to this amendment of the opposition, that if we do not at least delete those words and replace them accordingly, the impartiality and independence of our Speaker will be compromised. I'm hopeful that at least the government members can recognize that implication, and at the close of this debate, whenever that may be, they will have the courage of their convictions and some understanding of parliamentary procedure, and defeat the Premier's motion.

M. de Jong: My excitement about rising in this place to participate in my first debate, I'm sorry to say, is tinged somewhat by sadness. I am advised that there is an expectation that new members will have an opportunity to make a maiden speech, and that it's usually in response to a throne speech and represents an opportunity for new members to speak about themselves, their reasons for seeking office and their constituencies. I certainly have much to say about my constituency in Matsqui -- education, hospitals, health care and the transportation needs of my constituents. I have a great deal that I'd like to say about the people in my constituency and their accomplishments. The Minister of Housing will be pleased to know that I had planned to include some remarks about women in my constituency.

Such an address, hon. Speaker, would have been appropriate in response to the Speech from the Throne, but it's not, in my view, appropriate under the circumstances created by the minister's tabling of the motion before the House. I did have the option of remaining silent and waiting for another day. The nature of the motion presented by the Premier and the attack it represents upon the independence of the office of the Speaker precludes me from standing mute. I should preface my remarks with an assurance to all hon. members that notwithstanding the outcome of this debate, if the Speaker's chair becomes vacant I have no intention to seek it.

Hon. Speaker, there is an amendment before the House. I know that you will indulge me to the extent that other members have been indulged in addressing that amendment. I believe that British Columbians have certain legitimate and fundamental expectations that relate to an independent and impartial judiciary, free from political interference. We demand of our judges that they resign political affiliations, that they not hold political office, and that litigants -- be they criminally charged or civil litigants -- have an expectation that their cases will be free from political interference. The law provides very serious sanction for violations of that requirement.

Politically we have a legitimate expectation for an impartial electoral process. When British Columbians vote they have a legitimate expectation that there will be no political tampering with that process and that the ballot they cast will be properly counted. Following that through, there is a legitimate expectation among British Columbians that there will be independence insofar as the Speaker's office is concerned.

I would suggest that we in this chamber be mindful of what the public sees. They cast their ballot and a government is elected. In the case of a majority government -- one that assumes some wide-ranging powers -- all the trappings and resources of the state, of the government, are available to the executive branch, and the executive branch has tremendous resources available to it.

There are safeguards to protect against abuses by the executive branch and by the government. Those safeguards extend to the presence of a loyal opposition -- and to the motion before us -- the office of the Speaker; and the office of the Speaker represents one of those safeguards. It's a meaningful safeguard, in my view, only if the institution can be kept beyond the meddlesome grasp of the executive branch.

I will attempt to ensure that my comments remain relevant to the amendment, although in my short time here I'm coming to have some doubts about the extent to which relevancy is really part and parcel of debate.

[ Page 9482 ]

The Minister of Housing attempted to paint this as a women's issue. That minister should be ashamed. This is not a women's issue. This has nothing to do with men or women. This is an assault on the independence of the office of the Speaker. This should not be a debate -- in particular, the debate we are embarking upon with respect to the proposed amendment. This should not be a debate that focuses on the present occupant of the Speaker's office. Others have commented on the quality of services offered by you; I will not argue. In my two days here I have certainly formed a favourable impression. The debate has necessarily become focused on the present occupant of the Speaker's chair because of the suspicion that has been created by the timing of the government's motion.

The amendment deals with a particular clause in the motion and the words, "or for any other reason." In fact, if we examine the intention of the Premier in tabling the motion in this way, we could extend the words to "or for any other reason the government deems expedient," because that's what it amounts to. It is an approach driven by government expediency.

The government should be ashamed of the timing of this motion. The hon. member has commented on the delays caused by the tabling of this motion. Indeed, there are delays -- delays to the debate of the throne speech and to the debate of the budget, ultimately. British Columbians are waiting for this chamber to get on with the business of British Columbia.

We have heard very little from across the floor or from the government benches. Last night as I listened to the hockey game, I thought that if I were Jim Robson, I would come into this chamber today and pass along a special hello to all the hospital patients, shut-ins and members of the government who don't get out to legislative debates, and encourage them to participate and to defend this draconian assault on the independence of the Chair.

The Chair -- and in particular, the present occupant of the Speaker's chair -- has been pilloried by the innuendo that has arisen surrounding this issue. It is innuendo and suspicion that extends far beyond the walls of this chamber. It's in keeping with an approach to government and to such issues that we have seen before by this government.

The government knows that the Speaker cannot respond and has no outlet to defend herself or himself in the sanctity of the office. In the same way, government members knew that the judiciary had no outlet to respond when they attacked the judiciary over the Clayoquot incidents. In that case, the judiciary did respond by taking the unprecedented step of writing a letter through the press to the government. There is a practice, which this government has adopted, of attacking those people least equipped and least able to defend themselves. I find it reprehensible.

The Premier commenced this debate by commending to us the virtues of a free vote on this matter, and that is part and parcel of all that he has brought before us and encompassed in his motion. If the Premier is truly committed to that process and believes that that is one of the aspects of his motion that makes it worthwhile, then let this chamber have a free vote on the motion itself -- a free vote to endorse a free vote.

[11:00]

I have not stood in this chamber long; in fact, I've stood in this chamber all of 20 minutes now. But from the time I first visited this chamber as a very young man and it was explained to me about the office of the Speaker and the role played by the Speaker, I have understood the significance of the chair, the office and the person occupying those. The assault that this motion presents to all that British Columbians have come to expect about the sanctity of the office of the Speaker is terrible and reprehensible. That is why members on this side of the House will do what they can, by proposing the amendment that is presently before the House, to stymie the government in its attempts to attack the office of the Speaker. I speak in favour of the amendment as proposed, and I ask that members throughout the House join with me in attempting to stymie the government in this deliberate and draconian attempt to challenge the independence of the Chair.

T. Perry: I'll speak very briefly. I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Matsqui and of many others who have participated in the debate. In fact, I've spent an uncharacteristic amount of time listening to the debate in the last couple of days. I simply want to respond briefly to what the member for Matsqui said about the innuendo he claimed to have heard about the current Speaker. I haven't heard any. I've heard only compliments about the current Speaker, and I think they are well deserved.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to address this amendment in particular, and I will certainly address comments by the members opposite. I don't know if members have noticed, but if they go through the order paper, they will find that I also put a motion on the order paper that would have included this type of reform of the House. In that reform, if people care to look and if they look carefully, they will find that the very phrase we're choosing to amend is in the motion which I put forward. I want to draw people's attention to that to show that when we bring forward these types of motions -- the Premier included -- we should never be afraid to accept amendments or to find the errors in the motions. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast found some others that he feels are errors, and I'd be willing to debate those concerns also. That's our job: to look at these things and debate them to find out where they are at fault and where their strengths are and to improve them. I seconded the amendment because I felt I had a certain amount of responsibility to do that, given that I had also included it in my motion.

I think that the Premier, as the person who moved this motion, should be willing to look carefully at amendments to improve the motion. It certainly has not been a trait of this government to accept amendments to legislation or to any other matters that come before this House. It has been a rare occasion indeed when those amendments have been accepted. And in those cases it has only been because there was some matter of law that would have caused problems in the implementation of what the government was trying to do.

On the occasions when amendments were brought forward by members of the opposition to try and improve legislation as far as policy or the implementation of that legislation goes, virtually every one of those amendments was defeated by votes in this House. I think that has been to the detriment of a number of pieces of legislation. I hope that the government will accept some of the recommendations that come from the opposition.

In response to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain -- I believe it is -- who spoke before me very briefly, I think we should cut to the chase in this House. I think that the public knows a lot more than what that member thinks they know, or than what he's pretending that they know and we know. The reality -- as shameful as it has been -- is that the Minister of Employment and Investment and other caucus members have been rumoured in the media and in the corridors of this hall to be speaking to the press, 

[ Page 9483 ]

making comments about the Speaker who presently sits in the chair and their wishes to see a different Speaker. That's unfortunate, but that's certainly a fact; that's certainly what the public knows. If that member doesn't know it, then he's deceiving either himself or attempting, perhaps unintentionally, to mislead other people. Whether or not that's the case, we'll see.

Hon. Speaker, I do want to talk about....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member is rising, I did not mean to impugn him in any way. I know he's an hon. member, and I know that he had no intention whatsoever to try to mislead anybody.

The Speaker: Thank you for clarifying that, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I was trying to make the statement as best I could without trying to offend him. I hope he accepts that apology, if that was what was needed.

I did want to talk briefly about what has been going on here for the last few days, because the government has tried to paint this motion as some sort of parliamentary reform. As it reads, it certainly is a parliamentary reform. It's one that was called for by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on behalf of the Liberal caucus some two years ago. He has put that bill before the House several times since then. I find it interesting that the government never grappled with any of those reforms, and that one in particular. It was one of the first bills presented in the House by private members. The government stymied it at every opportunity that opposition members had to debate private members' bills and motions. The government has continuously stymied the opposition's attempt to draw information in the form of written questions. We have had virtually no response on any of the written questions that appear on the order paper in this House. We have had no opportunity whatsoever to debate motions from the opposition or private members. The NDP's own backbenchers have never had that opportunity. One motion that was on the order paper last year was a bill to protect freedom of expression, and it was never debated in this House. The government adjourned this House and didn't allow those types of debates to take place.

Hon. Speaker, I see the government, and the Premier in particular, stand up as a champion of reforming this House and speak about the election of the Speaker, as if it's some revolutionary thing that he wants to bring in, as if he is somehow defending the rights of individual British Columbians and the people in this House. He had many opportunities to do that before. The only reason he is doing it now is because the caucus, the cabinet or himself have decided that it's in their best interests, for whatever reason, to remove the current Speaker and replace her with some other Speaker. I think that is atrocious.

Look through some of the comments that have been made by other members in various parliaments around the world. I know the Speaker has had the opportunity to meet many of those people and, from what I've heard, has carried herself and the British Columbia flag very well. The former Prime Minister of India, Nehru, said: "The Speaker represents the House, its dignity and freedom, and because the House represents the nation the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation's freedom and liberty."

To have this type of motion on the order paper, with clauses that give free rein to the government to remove the Speaker virtually at will, really does impinge on the liberties, rights and freedoms of all people in B.C. It sets precedents not just in this House, but precedents that can be used in other jurisdictions right around the Commonwealth. We know that very well, because we draw upon the decisions of other Houses many times in debate. It's not just the rights of the people of British Columbia that this clause in this motion affects. It affects all people throughout the Commonwealth. I'm sure that when the Premier drafted this motion he looked at what had happened in Ottawa, Saskatchewan, the House of Commons in Great Britain -- and he may well have looked elsewhere. I would assume that he looked to other jurisdictions -- Australia and India, perhaps -- that have the British parliamentary system. We have to be very careful when we pass a motion of this type, one that affects parliamentary democracy in the way it does.

I ask the Premier to look at the amendment to see if he feels that there is merit in it, given the comments that have come forward today. And I ask the Premier to address those comments in some form in this House. I would hope that as the mover of this motion he would come to the House and advise us of his intentions with regard to the amendment. It's always difficult to debate a motion when the mover won't come and discuss it; I hope he will do that. I also hope that he will entertain other amendments that are made. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made one, and I'm sure there are going to be other motions by members in this House to try to improve this motion in some way. It is a fundamental change to this Legislature that is going to last for a long time. It's unlikely that it will be amended at any time in the near future, so it will probably be there for good. I would hope that we could look at this motion to try to improve it as best as possible and make the changes that are necessary to ensure that when we do get a motion, it is used in future for the proper reasons for which it is intended -- that is, to better represent the independence of this House and the individual members of this House, and to put credibility into the Speaker's chair rather than to remove it, which I think this motion intends to do and which that clause will end up doing.

D. Symons: I too rise to speak on the amendment to the motion to elect the Speaker by secret ballot. We find that this government is very selective in how it shows its appreciation for the value of a secret ballot. Indeed, just over a year ago in this House the members on this side were arguing very strongly to maintain the clause requiring a secret ballot when voting on the certification of unions. The government members pooh-poohed the idea that a secret ballot was really necessary in such situations. Now we see the government saying that they indeed want to bring that reform into the legislative session by having a secret ballot in the voting for the Speaker.

I remember that on my first day in this legislative chamber we went through what we might call a little play-acting. I remember it quite vividly, because it was all new to me. We had an election of sorts. Basically, the government chose the person they wanted to be Speaker. Then the House Leaders of the government and the opposition got this person and, with a bit of a struggle, brought her forward to the chair. It was very interesting to watch this and to learn the reasons why the Speaker was reluctant -- or at least feigned reluctance -- to take that position in this House. What we went through that day was instructive to all of us. What was shown by that reluctance was the fact that the office of the Speaker must be free from the influence of the government and the opposition. It must 

[ Page 9484 ]

be an impartial position. The designated Speaker was using, in a sense, that reluctance to say: "That is what I am taking on; that is the role I'm taking on in the legislative chamber -- the role of being impartial. I cannot be partial to the government that has chosen me or to the opposition. I am there to see that fairness is taking place in the legislative chamber and to rule the legislative chamber under those rules of fairness."

[11:15]

I remember occasions in this House when I have not agreed with rulings of the Speaker. I can remember one occasion in the last sitting where I was about to be thrown out, because I was so angry with a ruling that I did not agree with. But if I examine it, I find that members on the government side have shared my anger at times over rulings that have been made, and that the rulings have been impartial. I don't think any of us on either side of the House can claim that the Chair has shown favouritism. I think the Chair has shown extreme care in trying to be fair to all members in the House, and that is all we really ask of the Speaker in this House. We find that that may be the exact reason that this motion is here: the Chair has not shown favouritism.

I see that the Chair is hinting to me that I'd better stick -- I catch that hint, hon. Speaker, and I appreciate that -- to the motion before the House.

We have the amendment to delete the words "or for any other reason." Those words are extremely powerful if we want to maintain the impartiality of the Chair. The motion by the Premier reads "or for any other reason." It allows the government to manipulate the office of the Speaker. It allows them to use undue pressure on the Speaker to be partial to the government side of the House. That is not the role of the Speaker, so we are subverting, in effect, the office of Speaker if we pass this motion as it currently stands. It needs to be amended so that at least the office of the Speaker won't have the opportunity.... The debate we're having today seems to be implying that the opportunity may come, if we pass this motion, to manipulate the Chair into being somewhat more partial than impartial, as it has been.

The party in power basically chose the current Speaker. No doubt, if we go to a secret ballot, as is suggested in this motion, the party in power will still choose the new Speaker, if there is to be a new Speaker. Indeed, the party in power has the majority of seats in this legislative chamber. As we have seen with one very notable exception, the party in power has voted as a bloc in every vote that has taken place in this legislative chamber. Every member of the party in power wore a Yes button on the constitutional issue when they entered this chamber. So when we have a secret ballot, it's not likely that the solidarity -- if one could call it that -- of mind of the people sitting in government will waver. Unfortunately, it seems that they don't think for themselves; they think as they're told to think. That will take place, I'm afraid, even under a secret ballot. But at least at some opportune time, if that's brought in, it will possibly give them an opportunity, in the secrecy of that ballot, to vote their mind.

What we're really witnessing today -- and I'm very sorry to say this -- in the debate on this particular motion is a public execution by this government. Each and every government member who's going to be voting on this is going to be either a part of that execution or a part of the group that is seeking....

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to please remember the guidelines of parliamentary language in this chamber. Some language is offensive and inappropriate. I know that this is a sensitive debate, but I ask the member to address the amendment before him.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I'm finding this debate somewhat emotionally draining, because I feel that we are witnessing something that should not be taking place in this legislative chamber. It's a sham. It's just not the sort of thing we should be doing to a person who has served this chamber well and who has served the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association well.... I'm sorry, I'm just getting....

If there are to be legislative changes and if the government wanted to bring forth reform of this parliamentary session, they had the opportunity to do it at a more opportune time. They had the opportunity to do it when they were first elected. There were more than four months between the election and the calling of this House. If they did indeed believe that there should be some reform of the procedures in the legislative chamber, they could have introduced them at the beginning of that first session. If they still believed that they didn't have quite enough time then to get their act together.... They had been in opposition how many years -- 17? It might take them more than that to get their act together when they return to opposition, because they didn't seem prepared to take over government by having their thoughts ready to implement it at that first session. If they didn't have it ready then, they've had up until now to bring it forward.

They could bring a motion forward that would begin at the beginning of the thirty-sixth parliament. We could be passing a motion now and could have done it after the budget debate or after the throne speech debate. At some opportune time they could have brought forward a motion to make reforms of legislative procedures. Besides the election of a Speaker by secret ballot, we could have brought forward free votes on non-budgetary issues; we could have set a fixed legislative calendar and allowed members' bills to be debated. Those are things that government can still do. They don't even need to bring those forth as a bill; they could simply allow them.... They could have been brought together as a package before this House at the beginning of a session.

One would have to ask very strongly: why are we discussing this at this particular time during this thirty-fifth parliament? The only answer one can come up with is that they want to make a change in the office of Speaker now. That is not acceptable to this side of the House. That is not something we should be discussing today. We have a Speaker. We elected a Speaker under the House rules, for the term of this session, and this parliament has not yet ended. I find the reasons suspicious and unacceptable.

During this debate, allusions have been made to Caesar, the Ides of March and all the rest. To bring in Caesar in another aspect, I think we have reached our Rubicon, where we have come to the river and been told not to cross it. In this case the government members have been told how they're going to vote on this. Caesar made a decision about what he felt was best for the empire. Today each of has to make a decision as to what is best for the parliamentary traditions of this great institution, this Legislature. If people are going to respect the traditions of this Legislature, then they will have to vote against the original motion and, hopefully, vote for this amendment.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to take my place to support this amendment put forward by the official opposition and the remarks of my colleagues.

[ Page 9485 ]

I read again the Premier's words when he spoke to the main motion for election of the Speaker by the members of this assembly. If the Premier is sincere in his efforts to bring parliamentary reform to this Legislature, he has gone about it in a very cowardly way. The issue here is not the ability of the Speaker; the issue here is the abuse of parliament by this government. If the government were truly concerned about parliamentary reform, it would bring forward the kinds of reform the opposition continues to put forward: a fixed parliamentary calendar, free votes and a private members' day.

The amendment to delete the words "or for any other reason" should be supported by all members of this House. As the opposition critic for Women's Equality, I was most offended by the remarks of the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services yesterday when she spoke about the role of women in the parliamentary system. Women have indeed contributed much to the political life of our province and country. So it has been very distressing for me and, I'm sure, for many other women in the province to witness this blatant attempt to depose a Speaker. The minister's remarks clearly put forward the view that this is a gender issue. Does the minister suggest that there is a gender bias on the part of members of this assembly?

I believe the action of this government is very damaging to us all. The independence of the Speaker is a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy, and allowing the Premier's motion to stand unamended is an abuse of the very freedoms we cherish. The ability of a government to remove a Speaker for any reason means, in my view, that we are on the slippery slope to other abuses. I urge all members to support this amendment.

K. Jones: Like my colleagues, I rise with great concern about this particular section of the motion that's been brought forward by the Premier. Because we are so concerned, we brought forward this amendment to take away the section that's sort of an omnibus, all-encompassing description or reason for changing or deposing the Speaker. According to the original motion, "for any other reason" we could eliminate the Speaker; that is just not satisfactory. It's totally abhorrent to the independence of the position of Speaker in our legislative process. Throughout history it has been set as a standard in the Commonwealth. We heard from my colleague from Delta South yesterday that there is a definite need and an historical precedent for the Speaker's independence. In order to clarify that, particularly concerning a section of the Premier's motion, we as the opposition have made this amendment. We want to clarify that the passing of a Speaker or a direct motion of non-confidence in the Speaker would be the only way it could be done. That would leave the decision in the hands of all of the legislators.

The executive should never have the power to interfere with the legislative process. They have considerable power in the operating of the government of British Columbia, but they certainly should not take away the free-floating democratic process that gives all people in British Columbia representation in this House through their elected representatives. The Speaker's independence and ability to have the respect of all members of this House is paramount, and that cannot be tampered with. Unfortunately, we have a government that seems to be unwilling to deal with the democratic process but wants to control everything. I think this is just one more example of that happening.

Hon. Speaker, we have been quite impressed with the role you have played, not just in this House but in representing this House internationally. I think that has to be recognized when we are contemplating any possibility of changing the role of Speaker: that we are also impacting our reputation and credibility throughout the world as a Legislature -- particularly throughout the Commonwealth, where you had a very prominent role in its deliberations and also hosted, very graciously and wonderfully and with a great deal of commendation from throughout the Commonwealth, an executive conference here last year.

[11:30]

We need to recognize that when we are making this change on an arbitrary basis, we are jeopardizing all of those factors, not just making a change to the democratic process. All of my colleagues and I fully endorse the idea of having an elected Speaker; we recommended it at the beginning of the thirty-fifth parliament, and at that time it was rejected by this government. Why did it take them two and a half years to wise up to the fact that the public wanted a democratic, independent and capable Speaker who could provide the democratic process that this Legislature requires? It doesn't appear that this is something that was done for the democratic process, but something that was expedient to resolve their problems within their own structure, because they weren't getting their own way with all decisions by the Speaker.

I believe that is the only way that we can read this, and that they were trying to manipulate and control who would be elected, naturally because they have the ability in the election, by their overwhelming numbers, to vote for whomever they wish to have in the position of Speaker. But just having this motion that we're attempting to amend approved, particularly in the manner in which it has been put forward, is intimidating to the position of the Speaker and to all people in this legislative process. Next thing you know, it could be expanded to the ombudsman, the commissioner of freedom of information and privacy, the conflict-of-interest commissioner or the auditor general. Who's next? Where is the independence of this Legislature?

This government does not seem to understand the legislative process. If it had been their first time in government, with the Premier providing that leadership, we could understand it. If they had made this motion at the beginning of this parliament, perhaps we could have understood it. We are already two and a half years into this parliament and this government is supposed to have learned something in those two and a half years, both about the parliamentary process and about the democratic process. Maybe they are slow learners or something. Perhaps they could recognize that this is an inappropriate time to bring this forward, unless it were brought forward with an implementation statement specifying the end of this parliament. It is totally improper for this to be implemented at any time prior to the proroguing of this parliament, which is the only time we could feel satisfied in bringing forward such a proposal so that it would be in place for the selection of the Speaker, in the next parliament. This government has to realize that it does not have a mandate to break down the democratic parliamentary process that has been built over centuries in the name of reform. This is not reform. This is retrogressive control and intimidation on the part of the government. We on this side of the House have put forward the amendment that we are discussing today with the intention that there be a truly democratic process without any possibility for intimidation or coercion of the Speaker, or of any other member of this House.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 9486 ]

On the main motion.

W. Hurd: Rising today to oppose the motion by the government, I was struck by the comments by my colleague the hon. member for Delta South about the long history of Speakers in our parliamentary system, and the fate which befell them, hon. Speaker....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Perhaps, hon. member, you could wait one moment while the House comes to order. Thank you, hon. member. Please continue.

W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm pleased with that interjection. Those members were leaving. I guess they didn't want to hear the stories about Speakers past and the fate that befell them. It's interesting, because as we debate this motion, it appears that we're on that course of action in this assembly in dealing with the duly elected Speaker, who had the support of this assembly when that event occurred in 1991. I'm not surprised that some members opposite would see fit to not be here to listen to the debate as it unfolds.

I think it's appropriate to talk about some of the issues that have defined the independence and impartiality of the Speaker through the history of parliamentary government. I refer to the Rt. Hon. Horace King, the Speaker of the House of Commons, who commented: "...through the centuries all ties, financial and personal, between first the Crown, then the government, have been eroded, and now none remains. The Speaker has won allegiance only: to the House of Commons and to each of its members individually."

When I spoke to the assembly yesterday, I talked about the importance of all members of this assembly differentiating between the executive council and the private members of the assembly. I can look at the members opposite and see many colleagues, hon. members of this assembly, who have served on select standing committees and who have toured the province at the behest of this Legislative Assembly. During those sessions spent travelling around the province, we reinforced our understanding of what it is to be private members charged with the responsibility for acting on behalf of this assembly.

[11:45]

When we moved into a parliamentary session and elected a Speaker by the method in place at that time, surely we made a commitment to the Speaker for the duration of that parliament. That's obviously an historical precedent; it has been that way throughout the history of parliamentary government. As the hon. member for Delta South indicated in his address, only through the most draconian of measures was the Speaker removed from the chair. Anarchy is the breakdown of parliamentary government, not the enhancement of it.

The Speaker, having been chosen impartially -- I'm referring again to the Rt. Hon. Horace King -- must show himself to be impartial in the chair by his every action, both inside and outside the House. He must sever his party connections. These are longstanding traditions.

We have to appreciate that this motion is being driven by the executive council -- the cabinet -- of this assembly, which is dressing it up under the guise of reform. As I said yesterday, it's a thinly veneered motion. The opposition and other private members have sought in vain to introduce real reforms in the way this chamber operates: free votes, fixed parliamentary calendars and a package of changes that would make a difference to the lives of every member of this assembly and to their ability to represent their constituencies. The government has resisted any of those changes for two and a half years, and now, in the midst of this legislative session, it brings in a motion that I fear will diminish us all.

I ask the members opposite, who are obviously going to be the ones to support this motion from the government, to think about the impact it will have. I listened to the Minister of Housing stand and talk about the breakthroughs for women in our assembly and proudly talk about the role of her party. I ask the members opposite to think about how this motion will be viewed by the women of British Columbia. Will they understand the nuances of this motion, the desire for one limited reform on the part of the executive council? Or will they view it in the way they will always view these kinds of decisions: in the light of their own lives and experiences, where women rise to positions which some men in our society cannot conceive they could see them in. If we make that kind of decision in the midst of this parliament, hon. Speaker -- totally without precedent in the history of parliamentary democracy -- what will we be saying to the women of the province? That's why I was shocked and appalled by the method of debate used by that hon. minister to talk about the intent of this motion.

This is a motion that I said yesterday does not have the support of the opposition; that will be clearly demonstrated in due course. We are going to end up with a divided parliament where confidence in the Chair will not exist. Clearly, that is the only result of a vote on this motion.

I ask the members opposite who are determined to support this motion to think about the future. We are two and a half years into the history of this parliament; we have another 18 months to two years of debate in this assembly on behalf of the people of the province. And I know that, given the volatility of the electorate and the history of elections in the most recent past, there will be those of us who will not return to this chamber for one reason or another. They will choose not to run again in some cases; in other cases they may be defeated.

[ Page 9487 ]

I implore the members opposite to consider the ramifications of the decision they are about to take. Do they really want to be remembered as the private members of this assembly who failed to uphold one of the most treasured parliamentary traditions, that of the independence and impartiality of the Speaker? Is that the way they want to be remembered? Or have they thought through the impact of this motion they are determined to support? Because that will be the effect: a divided assembly. I ask the members opposite to reflect on the progress that has been made in this assembly in two and a half years on the work of the legislative committees, on the work that this assembly has charged those private members to undertake. I ask them whether it is worthwhile for us to divide on a motion as important as the impartiality and independence of the Speaker's chair.

I guess what troubles us is that those of us on this side of the House have sought to introduce meaningful change to this assembly many times in the past. We have sought the kind of changes that would enable us as private members to represent our ridings more effectively, to introduce bills and motions in this assembly which -- even though we are not members of the executive council -- would enable us to better the lives of British Columbians in our own ridings. We have sought to do that, and the initiatives have been consistently denied. Even when the public has been telling us in our own ridings that these kinds of initiatives and reforms are important, they have been consistently denied. So you can imagine, hon. Speaker, how the members on this side of the House feel when the executive council of the assembly introduces a motion, under the guise of reforming this assembly, whose only desire is to deal with one issue: the removal of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Is it any wonder that the people who live and work in the province are so cynical about the operations of government, about motions which are papered over but whose real intent is clear?

I implore the members opposite to reflect on the intent of this motion and on how it will be viewed by the people of the province. And I would ask them -- I would implore them -- to remember that how we treat each other in this assembly will give people in British Columbia a guide to how we would treat them if we do move to government; or, in the case of government private members, if they do some day become members of the executive council.

I think it's appropriate for me to reflect on some of the amazing quotes that have come forth in history about the role of the Speaker and on how important it is that this parliament not divide over that fundamental office. A former Speaker of the House of Commons noted that a Speaker "would show fear or favour to nobody -- king or baron, Tory, socialist or Liberal, frontbencher or backbencher -- because he is the servant of only one master, and that master is the freely elected House of Commons" -- which in the province of British Columbia, as is the case in many other realms in the British Commonwealth, is the only forum the public has for its voice to be heard. It is important that its voice be heard on the floor of this assembly. It is absolutely vital that the members of this assembly have confidence in the one officer among us who presides over this assembly, who rules on the orders and propriety of debate, and is a Speaker who would show fear of no one -- king, baron, Tory, socialist, Liberal, frontbencher or backbencher -- and that those rulings are in order and are ones we can all support.

The effect of this motion will be to dash that confidence, because it will divide this House. With such little time left in the life of this parliament, it will not be a motion of reform. This motion will not be greeted with enthusiasm, understanding or support by the people of British Columbia. They will see it as another example of an executive council that really does not understand or wish to understand the importance of the independence of this assembly.

I ask the members opposite to consider the remarks I have made and that many speakers on the opposition benches have made. We do not support this motion. It has been brought forward in a despicable way under the guise of changing this assembly for the better, when in fact it will not.

I see that the time is late in the morning session, and I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada