1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
Volume 13, Number 6
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 13, Number 6
[ Page 9489 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce, in the gallery, 87 exchange students from Kyoto, Japan, visiting, I think, in two shifts. They are participants in UBC's Ritsumeikan academic exchange program. They're taking regular courses at UBC and have been there since September. The UBC-Ritsumeikan exchange is the largest of its type in North America and another first for British Columbia. I ask all members to make the exchange students from Japan welcome today.
AN ACT TO REDUCE THE EXPENDITURES OF GOVERNMENT, 1994
D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled An Act to Reduce the Expenditures of Government, 1994.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, this bill provides for a maximum of two years during which the provincial government will be required to reduce expenditures in order to achieve a balanced budget. The schedule attached to the bill provides for specific reductions in program spending, which would ensure the achievement of a balanced budget no later than the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996. The bill requires the government to reduce spending and not increase taxation in order to meet the goals of the expenditure reduction period. However, provision is made to allow spending of an emergency nature if required.
The overall goals of the expenditure reduction period must be met within the two-year mandate of the bill. In addition, the bill charges all members of this assembly with the responsibility of offering specific advice to the Minister of Finance on program expenditure reductions, without calling into question the traditional lack of confidence in the minister dictated by parliamentary tradition. This bill recognizes that, given the size of the current deficit, the provincial budget cannot be easily balanced or balanced overnight. By providing for a maximum period of two years to achieve a balanced budget, the government will be able to reduce spending in a controlled fashion, without causing severe disruptions in the delivery of important government services.
Through the force and discipline of law, we can ensure the current operating deficit of the provincial government is reduced and eliminated. I am pleased to commend this bill to members of the House.
Bill M208, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
AN ACT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, 1994
D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled An Act to Balance the Budget, 1994.
D. Mitchell: This bill will come into force once a balanced budget is achieved, pursuant to An Act to Reduce the Expenditures of Government, 1994, of which first reading was just given. It requires the government to balance the provincial budget each and every year thereafter. A balanced budget means that total government revenues are matched to total government expenditures. A balanced budget would come into force with this act, and the provincial government would no longer have the authority to finance the day-to-day operations of government by deficit spending. Section 2 of this bill causes the Minister of Finance to give priority to reducing government spending, instead of raising taxes or introducing new taxes to provide for a balanced budget. Section 3 provides for any annual operating surpluses to be dedicated specifically to the retirement of the province's accumulated debt.
Municipal governments in our province are required by law to balance their budgets annually. The time has now come in our province for fiscal responsibility enforced by laws of this kind. It's time for balanced-budget legislation as a first step to regaining control of our financial affairs. Once this bill comes into force, we will then be able to take the next important step in the direction of addressing our accumulated provincial debt. I am very pleased to commend this bill to members of the House.
Bill M209 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
B.C. HYDRO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. The number one promise in the NDP's election platform in 1991 was: "A New Democrat government will put an end to secret deals and special favours for political friends." With this in mind, will the Premier finally take responsibility for an action that was taken under his leadership: the hiring of Marc Eliesen at $195,000 a year plus a 30 percent bonus? In view of his promises to the people of British Columbia, how can the Premier justify this special deal for his special friend?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G. Clark: As the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, I am of course delighted to answer. But some of these questions coming from the Leader of the Opposition are puzzling. For example, during the years that he was mayor of Vancouver, from 1989 to 1993, we saw a 26 percent increase in his budget for the mayor's office, which would mean the three largest budget increases in history.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. If the House will come to order.... I'm sure that the minister is just winding up his reply.
Hon. G. Clark: Being attacked by the Leader of the Opposition on the question of executive compensation is a bit like being called ugly by a toad. We have a freeze on executive compensation in British Columbia over $100,000. When the Leader of the Opposition was mayor of Vancouver, he did nothing about executive compensation in the city of Vancouver.
The Speaker: A supplemental.
G. Campbell: My supplementary question is to the Premier. I'm not sure if the hidden Premier or the real Premier will be answering this question. But I think it is
[ Page 9490 ]
important for the Premier of this province to be accountable for the decisions of his government. I have a confidential financial document disclosing that the pension allocated for Mr. Eliesen of B.C. Hydro is $1.186 million -- $13,000 per month. It takes all of the hydro bills from everyone in 100 Mile House to pay for that pension plan. My question to the Premier -- the real Premier -- is: how can he justify this outrageous pension fund payoff to his NDP insider friend?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Because of the lack of accountability of Crown corporations over the last decade, I established the Crown corporations secretariat, and I have established the Public Sector Employers' Council. The whole issue of compensation, perks and rules for all of the public sector -- not just for those employed directly by the provincial government but for Crown corporations, municipalities, health care agencies and others -- where there has been a lack of accountability, is the reason that I established the Public Sector Employers' Council. I will be making announcements in the near future to tighten up this whole area, which should have been done many years ago.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: It's fine to talk about what the government may do in the future, but unfortunately the government told us that back in 1991. There has been no accountability at B.C. Hydro. We're talking about a pension fund of $1.186 million. Ask ordinary British Columbians if $1.186 million is fair to them, Mr. Premier. My question to the Premier is: how can he possibly justify this kind of a pension arrangement for his special friend when he's sending out bills to British Columbians across this province that are increasing their hydro tax rates?
Hon. G. Clark: Executive compensation at B.C. Hydro is scrutinized by the Utilities Commission. They've just done a review of executive compensation that says we're getting good value for tax dollars. It's the third-largest electric utility in Canada. The rates of compensation for senior management are lower than those other two utilities. We have a first-class utility with the third-lowest hydro electric rates in North America. It is one of the most efficient Crown corporations in Canada. We're proud of it. It does a good job. We have to pay compensation to compete with the private sector for all of the senior management positions in a Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro.
[2:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: I wonder if the Utilities Commission has a copy of this document. It refers to a pension to a Mr. Hunt. It says: "This provision was revealed only after his retirement was announced. Therefore this feature was not included...." It resulted in a pension payment to him of $1.5 million. I wonder if the B.C. Utilities Commission knew about that. Will the Premier finally stand up, get his ministers in line and start paying for some of these bills?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, since we've come to office, executive compensation all across government is public information -- on the record for the first time. We table it in the House. We had the Korbin commission review all executive compensation. Members know about these facts because we're shining a spotlight on executive compensation. We've taken action. We brought in the Public Sector Employers' Council. The Minister of Finance has taken action, and we've set up that council -- no help from the opposition. We're now taking further action to review executive compensation in this province.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The reason this information is coming to light is that people in B.C. Hydro won't stand for it anymore, not because this ministry is making it open.
According to a B.C. Hydro assessment, Mr. Eliesen's pension fund is calculated to include his years of service with Manitoba Hydro, Ontario Hydro and the Ontario public service. However, there is no mention of compensation received from those entities in order to pay for it. Will the Premier assure this House that we are not funding this outrageous pension agreement on behalf of those other provinces? Will he also guarantee that Mr. Eliesen will no longer be able to double-dip, triple-dip or quadruple-dip?
Hon. G. Clark: We have reciprocal arrangements for deputy ministers who have spent time in public service across this country. This pension arrangement was public at the time; it remains public information. The compensation for the chief executive officer of B.C. Hydro is significantly less than that for the CEO of Ontario Hydro, or anybody in the private sector.
The paper today announced over $1 million for Michael Phelps, the CEO of a regulated corporation in the private sector that is almost exactly the same size as B.C. Hydro. We need to attract quality people to these positions. We need to be competitive with the private sector. This is above-board, open and accountable, as we have been from day one, since we took office.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Eliesen could hardly be termed competent. He drove Ontario Hydro into the ground, and they have 12 percent rate increases.
It's interesting that as soon as the questions get tough, the Premier defers to his stronger ministers. My question is directly to the Premier. This pension is an outrage. To pay for this settlement, the average taxpayer buying from B.C. Hydro would have to leave their bathroom light burning for 338 million years. On behalf of the taxpayers and in the spirit of Power Smart, will the Premier turn out Mr. Eliesen's bathroom light?
Hon. G. Clark: The reason that Ontario Hydro is in trouble is because of a Liberal administration there sinking billions of dollars into uneconomical nuclear plants, not because of the short tenure of Mr. Eliesen. B.C. Hydro electric rates are the third-lowest in North America, and continue to be. We get good value for an energy-rich province. We have an efficient corporation which is scrutinized yearly by the Utilities Commission. That member is welcome to attend the Utilities Commission hearing. There's even intervener funding now because of this administration, so you can get some funding to go and appear before the Utilities Commission and scrutinize every penny of expenditure. This is an efficient corporation.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
C. Serwa: Fortunately my question is not going to be directed to the minister responsible for bafflegab. The house of cards falls down, and today the smell of scandal and
[ Page 9491 ]
corruption is in the air. My question is going to be directed to the Attorney General.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! I did not even hear which minister the question is being directed to.
C. Serwa: To the Attorney General. Almost a year has elapsed since I first asked questions in this Legislature with respect to the NDP Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. Could the Attorney General please advise this House of the status of charges in that particular scandal?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: An RCMP investigation continues. A special prosecutor is in place, and his name is Mr. Ace Henderson.
C. Serwa: I am aware of that, but recognizing that the matter is not yet before the courts, that is exactly the point. Ace Henderson, the Crown prosecutor, is reported to have asked for further material from the police. Can the Attorney General tell us whether or not the restriction on operating funds is hampering the speedy completion of this very lengthy process?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not going to make any comment about an investigation conducted by the RCMP at this time.
C. Serwa: The matter is not before the courts, and I think it is incumbent for this House to have the information requested.
A final supplementary to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General assure the House and the public that no one in government is trying to indirectly delay the laying of charges until perhaps after the next provincial election?
PREMIER'S DEFENCE OF B.C. FOREST PRACTICES
W. Hurd: My question is to the Premier. At considerable taxpayer expense, the Premier travelled to Europe last month to defend his government's record on forest practices. Last week, as a result of that lobbying effort, the U.K. division of Scott Paper cancelled a contract for pulp from this province, and yesterday Kimberly-Clark did the same. Since the Premier regards this as a wonderful lobbying effort, perhaps he can tell the House how many other multimillion-dollar contracts are in jeopardy as a result of his trip to Europe.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Exactly what I said in Europe is happening: the consequence of past practices in this province.... I went to Europe to speak to parliamentarians who were thinking of proceeding with a boycott of B.C.'s forest products -- and to members of the Bundestag -- to advise them that any decisions they were thinking of making were based on misrepresentation and misinformation from Greenpeace. I'm happy to report to this House that the European Parliament is not proceeding with that boycott. They have visited British Columbia and they have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. They have seen past practices that we were not elected to defend. We were elected to change those practices, and we are changing them.
I say to the companies: "Now do your work. Go talk to your customers in Europe. We're doing our job; now you do your job."
The Speaker: I will allow one supplemental to this member, and the final question to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
W. Hurd: In addition to failing to convince the European Community of the worth of his government's response to the forestry debate, the industry now faces a threat from California Senator Tom Hayden's proposal for a state ban on newsprint made from old-growth forests. How can the Premier explain his total failure, not only in Europe but also in California, in defending the communities and the people of this province who rely on the pulp industry for their livelihood?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the people of this province, and even the opposition, owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the Premier of this province for having taken on this issue and courageously gone not only to Europe but to the United States to carry the truth of this government's message of change in the forest industry in this province.
That message of change is starting to work. The Premier indicated the European Parliament has put aside its plans to consider any kind of motion for boycott. Greenpeace's actions are not only economically irresponsible but also environmentally irresponsible, because, as I'm sure members know, the pulp industry relies on low-grade wood and residuals which, if they are not devoted to pulp, will become waste product. That's a message this government has been carrying as well, and the opposition would do well to support the government and the changes that are being made, rather than sitting over there criticizing and placing the economic future of this province in jeopardy.
B.C. TRANSIT OFFICE EXPENDITURES
D. Schreck: My question is for the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. We have heard much about the need to control waste in Crown corporations. What's your explanation, Mr. Minister, for the moving expenses for B.C. Transit?
Hon. G. Clark: There are some very serious questions around the investment in furniture by Crown corporations. The Leader of the Opposition has raised these questions in the House in respect to B.C. Hydro. So I went back and reviewed B.C. Transit. Unfortunately, the numbers are terrible: from 1988 to 1992, B.C. Transit, who hadn't moved offices yet, spent $3.9 million on new furniture; but of course, the Leader of the Opposition knows this, because he was on the board of directors of B.C. Transit and approved those expenditures.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. While hon. members may not have heard it, the bell did signal the end of question period.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 1, standing in the name of the Premier on the order paper.
[ Page 9492 ]
ELECTION OF SPEAKER BY SECRET BALLOT
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock adjourned debate.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today and address a motion from the Premier's office that, as I indicated this morning, has no honour, a motion to end the tenure of the Speaker in this assembly. It's a disgraceful and despicable motion...
The Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. member is waiting until order comes to the House. Please proceed, hon. member.
W. Hurd: As I was saying, this motion -- a malevolent motion, hon. Speaker -- is designed such that it will render this assembly less than successful during the last two years of its mandate. I'm sure the choice that the government members are intent on making with respect to this motion, as I said this morning, will divide this assembly, the opposition and the government side of the House. I consider the motion to be reprehensible in the extreme, given the media speculation which accompanied the presentation of this motion to the House. Clearly the Premier is determined to pursue this course of action in the assembly. And I say the Premier has no honour -- no honour, hon. Speaker -- in bringing this motion forward.
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. member would like to withdraw those comments and find other words through which he can carry on with the debate.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, clearly we are dealing here with a case....
The Speaker: I must ask the hon. member if he would simply withdraw the comments he has made, because personal comments on any other member of the House are not allowed in debate. If you would withdraw those words and then continue on with the debate....
W. Hurd: The motion, as I indicated, is less than honourable. I apologize for impugning the motives of the mover of the motion. However, I feel strongly, hon. Speaker....
The Speaker: The member has withdrawn his comments?
W. Hurd: Thank you. Yes, I have, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, this motion is going to divide this assembly. It's going to render the life of this parliament less than fruitful in its pursuit of excellent public policy. It is a motion for which not one government member has offered a shred of defence.
[2:30]
I can't help but harken back to the events of the Matsqui by-election, in which the governing party failed miserably to defend the honour of a candidate who stood for election in that by-election. We are seeing the same kind of display with this motion in the assembly today. It's a disgraceful episode, hon. Speaker, a sad chapter in the history of this assembly. I look for the real reasons why the government has brought this motion forward. Given the fact that this motion will never be supported by the opposition, what possible rationale can there be for a motion which is going to polarize and divide this assembly for the rest of its life? We continue to ask on this side of the House why the government insists on bringing it forward. Is reform of this assembly the rationale? If that is the rationale, then why are more members opposite not standing and speaking to this motion? Why are they not defending this motion as a reasonable and responsible motion to reform the assembly of this House? Why are they intent on leaving the debate of the merits of this motion within the sphere of the opposition? Why won't they stand and defend it? As I have indicated, hon. Speaker, they know that the motion has no honour.
I can't begin to say how disappointed the members on this side of the House feel. After two and a half years of debate in this assembly, we are embarking on a course of action that will diminish this assembly and not enhance it. I wish the members opposite would engage in this debate to defend this motion, which does not come from their ranks. As I indicated this morning, it does not come from the private members of this assembly; it comes from the members of the executive council who, for their own reasons, are pushing this motion.
Certainly, most of us in this assembly have followed the press reports leading up to the presentation of this motion. We know the kind of speculation that even today is occurring in the pages of the media. Why have those opposite caved in to this kind of pressure? Why are they not standing on this motion defending their rights as private members in this assembly first and beyond any other consideration? Why are they doing the bidding of the executive council on a motion which will clearly reduce the effectiveness of this assembly? The opposition waits for answers to these questions. We await some measure of understanding from the members opposite about the impacts and effects of this motion, but none, hon. Speaker, has been forthcoming.
It's a sad and shocking display, which will obviously wind down since the government is insistent upon bringing it forward. I hope and pray that before the House divides on this motion those members opposite will consider their places in history. I hope they will consider their places in the history of this province as being members of a parliament which clearly has as its intention a motion to end the Speaker's life in mid-term. It's not much different from what occurred in those centuries past -- a little less draconian, perhaps, but the effect will be the same. In B.C. in the twentieth century we don't take Speakers to the Tower of London anymore. We don't take them out to the executioner's block. What happens is that they are tried and convicted in the media, and often the result on their future careers and employment options can be just as dramatic.
We have to recognize that as members of this assembly we occupy a different role in society than other people. The foibles and mistakes that we make in this House are public mistakes. They are mistakes that the media pick up and comment on. Given the media speculation that has accompanied this motion, it is all the more incumbent upon those of us who understand the reality of our position in society to stand up and defend those who, by virtue of their office, are unable to talk about their rulings and the decisions they render in a position that is designed to serve all of us in this assembly.
So I ask the hon. members opposite to put themselves in the position of private members first and to remember that in 1992 this assembly elected a Speaker by the rules of the day. Despite the intention of this motion, despite the thin veneer of this motion, it is our job as private members in this assembly to protect the choice that we made in 1992 and to
[ Page 9493 ]
say that if we want to reform the institution of electing a Speaker, it is something that should be done in the dying days of the parliament and should be for the next parliamentarians to adopt. In that regard, indeed, it will be seen as a reformist measure to make this House better.
But the manner in which this motion has been brought, the speculation that is accompanying it, the clear wishes of the members of the opposition, which have been displayed by speaker after speaker, clearly indicate that this motion will never be supported by the opposition. It will never be accepted by the opposition. And whatever the result of the motion, and whatever the result of the vote that would follow it, the Speaker's chair in this assembly will be compromised because those on this side of the House will not accept the spirit of the motion, will not accept the motives of the executive council in proposing it and will not accept the principle that this assembly has been hijacked by the executive council in dealing with this motion.
Hon. Speaker, in closing I look forward to the comments from the members opposite, who after all will have to live with this decision in their lives beyond the walls of this assembly, beyond the days when their lives as parliamentarians are finished. I ask them to carefully weigh the intent of this motion and how it will be perceived by the people of British Columbia. Perhaps it will be perceived as being an example of a lack of tolerance and understanding in this chamber.
We had an opportunity to defend a candidate in Matsqui, defend a Speaker and defend the decisions of the courts, which have no ability to comment on their own judgments. The ability of this assembly to defend those who by virtue of their position are not in a position to defend themselves is the principle at work here. It's not whether this motion will reform the assembly or make things better in here; it's how it will be perceived by the public of the province, and how they will view the actions of the members of this assembly in supporting this motion from the executive council, which is the government of the province of British Columbia, not most of the members who sit here today. This is a motion that the government has brought forward, not the members of this assembly.
I urge those members opposite to weigh the effects of this decision carefully and to offer their comments on why it's such a tremendous idea, given the reality of the debate and the accompanying press reports and media speculation that have surrounded it. I look forward to that defence.
I know that there are members in this assembly whom I've travelled with in the course of duties on select standing committees who feel just as strongly about the independence of this chamber as do the members on this side of the House and who, if they were given the opportunity, would defend the principle of separation between the legislative branch, the executive branch of government and those of us in this assembly who as members must vote and deal with the legislation that the executive branch proposes.
So with that I look forward to comments from the members opposite. I believe that this motion is a sad mistake which will polarize this parliament and render all of us less effective in our parliamentary roles than might otherwise be the case.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I request leave of the House to present a petition.
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I have a petition from 270 residents of the Okanagan, who are objecting to taxes being applied to beer and wine brewed on premises. They ask the government to live up to its commitment to look harder at spending cuts rather than increasing taxes.
On Motion 1.
F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, I've sat here for the last day and a half and listened to presentations on what is one of the most serious motions that has ever come before this House. I understand the position you are in, hon. Speaker, in the midst of this debate. Right now I'd like to congratulate you on the decorum and the control that you have exercised over the debate.
I've heard many times: why is the opposition not up on their feet defending this? I guess one of the reasons is that it's that type of debate. When a motion like this comes before any parliament and there's an incumbent involved in the decision.... Whether it's now, at the start of parliament or at the beginning or the end of the next parliament, there will always be an incumbent involved. You cannot have debate in the House without a Speaker present. That's just the way parliament works. You can't make any changes with debate in the House without the Speaker present.
Prior to this parliament, our leader indicated to British Columbians that we would be bringing forward changes for the reform of this House and some of the rules that we live by. For better or worse, the press picked up on the fact that a change in how we elect the Speaker was involved. We got it to the floor of the House, and the first thing we have to do is get that done and get it established. Some people across the way seem to think that this will be less painful and less harmful if it's done at the end of a session, when we're all tired and want to get out of here. Some of us might not even be here. I suggest that right now is the time we should be debating it. Let's get it done and get on with the business of the House.
I've been in this parliament as long as many of the other members over there have been. It has been a learning experience for me. As I say, I have listened to the presentations of the previous speakers on why they think we shouldn't be doing this. I've heard some things quoted from the British parliament. I've seen the ghost of Oliver Cromwell walking down these halls, based on what I've heard from the speakers. I've learned to respect a lot of them in the past two and a half years. Then what is it that makes me think that they are less than sincere in how they are debating this particular issue?
Hon. Speaker, you probably realize this as much as I do. I've been sitting here with my stomach churning at some of the stuff I've heard from the opposition. The same people who stood up and defended this position so vigorously were the people who showed the utmost lack of respect for the Chair and the person in it during the last session. I find that hypocritical.
Finally, I won't dwell too much on how they dealt with their own staff or their previous leader, but we can recall how they did. The thing that really makes me doubt their sincerity....
Interjection.
F. Garden: I won't be too long, but I want the members opposite to be aware of this. The thing that makes me doubt
[ Page 9494 ]
their sincerity is that in the list of reforms suggested by several speakers from the opposition, one notice of motion deals with the election of the Speaker. It's in writing. It was prior to us all sitting down here. It states, "or for any other reason," which is exactly the same wording as the Premier has in his motion.
[2:45]
Why the change? You've been sincere. You've called us all kinds of names over here for sitting quietly and not saying a thing. Will somebody please stand up after I've sat down and tell me this: after giving written notice to this House of the type of reform they were going to present that had exactly the same wording as ours, why the change? Could it be for political expediency? No. Could it be for television or the press? No. It's because of honour. They are honourable people. They all stood up and told us of how dishonourable we were. But these honourable individuals who have catcalled, who sit smiling smugly across at us, have in their notice: "...any other reason."
This is an unpleasant debate because we have an incumbent. But I want to tell you this: it's about reform. There will be other methods. There will be other reforms coming up through the session that we're going to bring forward. So at this time I want you to understand that this is about reform of this House.
You've suggested that backbenchers are sitting idly on their hands. We want to get this debate over with and move on to the next order of business. We need to elect a Speaker. I can recall the former House Leader of that party politicking to be elected as Speaker. I say to you that this is part of parliamentary reform. It takes the decision-making process away from the Premier. It puts it in our hands. We get to debate it. We will get to elect our Speaker in this House. Let's not prolong this any longer; let's vote on it.
M. de Jong: In the few days that I've been here I've watched with interest. I've noted confusion and irritation on the faces of members opposite. I can only presume that they are perhaps uncomfortable and upset at our unwillingness on this side of the House to abandon the cause of the Speaker's office -- because it is the Speakers's office that is being defended here -- and that office's long history of independence from the Crown and the executive branch and authority.
I'll try to simplify the issue and present it to members opposite in terms they can understand. Let's get back to some pretty simple and basic schoolyard politics. Let's imagine two teams getting together to face off for a hockey game. They have a referee to enforce the rules of the game. They agree on who is going to administer the rules. The game starts, and the referee administers throughout the entire match. Wouldn't it be strange if one of the teams midway through the game said: "By golly, I think it's time to change the referee?" Wouldn't the other team be a little suspicious about what's motivating the other side?
That's what has happened here. The puck was dropped on this parliament in 1991, and the sides agreed on who the referee was going to be. Now, here in the second period, one of the teams wants to change the referee. Why do they want to change now? If I had my druthers, I'd be suggesting to the referee that the members on the other side -- and the government and the Premier in particular -- should have a misconduct penalty assessed to them. A little time in the sin-bin for the Premier.
H. Lali: You're watching too much television. This isn't a game here.
M. de Jong: You're right. It's not. I hear the hon. member saying that it's not a game, but that's what we've had thrust upon us by members opposite. They're playing a silly game.
This government has a shameful, sad record of abandonment. I alluded to it earlier this morning when I spoke on the amendment to the present motion. They abandoned the judiciary. What a shameful day that was! I remember it well. I remember discussing the matter with colleagues of mine at the courthouse in Matsqui and being absolutely perplexed and amazed to read that ministers of the Crown had written an open letter to the press that was critical of the judiciary.
It relates to the motion before the House, because once again, much as they abandoned their former candidate in Matsqui, the government is demonstrating its willingness to abandon an institution that is ill-equipped to defend itself, and that is the Speaker's office. Others have alluded to it, but I saw it. I was in Matsqui the day Mr. Wagar was nominated, and I was there the day he was told by this government and this party that he was to be abandoned. Again it demonstrates the willingness of this government and this Premier to abandon those who are poorly equipped to defend themselves. It's a shameful record.
I mentioned it earlier, and I'll say it again: the Premier made much of the fact that one facet of the motion he tabled that should draw us to it is the free vote that will result in selecting the Speaker. Let us have that free vote.
Members opposite have been entirely reluctant to speak to this motion. I don't blame them. I'd be ashamed if I were them. And yet it requires speaking to; it requires a defence, but it really is indefensible, because of the timing and because members opposite, and the government in particular, can't answer the one basic question: why now? Why this amendment, and why now? What is to follow?
We have heard the litany of the history of parliament and of the office of Speaker; we've heard tell of the tragedy that has befallen occupants of the chair for refusing to succumb to pressure from the executive and royal branch. We have heard about the long parliament, the short parliament, the good parliament and the bad parliament, but today I'm sad to say that in my first week in this House, I feel that I am participating in the shameful parliament. Only by standing as we have on this side of the House to defend the integrity, independence and sanctity of the Speaker's office can we bring some sense of self-respect back to this chamber. And that will remain the intention of members on this side of the House.
G. Wilson: Speaking to the main motion before us, as I suggested when speaking to an amendment brought forward by the official opposition, the difficulty that I -- and certainly those who are reading through this -- have with this document is that it tends to be precipitous in its language in 11(2). If you're going to bring in a piece of legislation or a motion that's going to affect a standing order of the Legislative Assembly, I just don't think you want to have wording that would in any way lead us to believe that it will precipitate some event. Therefore I think that rather than 11(2), which was a difficulty because of "for any other reason," and an amendment was defeated.... The real issue that I take with the language of that particular section is, "or is to be," because that precipitates against a person in the office of Speaker, and I believe that it is not desirable language to have in a text.
I'm going to try to keep my remarks specific to the language of this particular motion before us because I think there has been an awful lot of rhetoric around the question of
[ Page 9495 ]
incumbency. What I tried to address before is the fact that we have two issues before us right now: one that properly belongs in this chamber, the discussion on the language of a motion presented; and a second, which does not properly belong in this chamber, the question of incumbency of the Speaker.
I think that if we are to respect the rules and traditions of this House and the neutrality of the Chair, it is important that neither side -- if we can look at sides in this Legislative Assembly -- puts the Speaker in a position that would compromise that Speaker's ability to be impartial. If there is an attempt to impugn the motive, regardless of what evidence may support impugning the motive of a motion, it runs against the standing orders, first of all. Secondly, if it involves the office of Speaker, it puts us in a situation where both sides are able to put the office in a position of compromise. Therefore I think it is extremely important, when we hear members talking about setting parliamentary procedure and tradition with respect to this particular motion, that neither side play politics with this issue. If we are to remove the words "or is to be" under section 11(2), nothing in this particular section would precipitate the office of the Speaker being vacated. Therefore it would leave to the Speaker the decision of the incumbency, based on the Speaker's decision either to remain or to resign, should that decision be taken, or for other reasons which I think can legitimately be considered -- death or incapacity in some way or, for whatever reason, such as lengthy illnesses, which may be seen as an incapacitation because of long absences -- such that it may be desirable for the House, through some form of process, to elect a new Speaker. I think that's an entirely reasonable proposition.
We are consistently hearing the debate go -- and I think that this is a bad precedent to be setting -- as to whether or not there is some kind of untoward political motivation for the removal of the incumbent. There is nothing in the language of the motion before us, no matter what our suspicions may be, that has any indication whatsoever the incumbency is under any threat. Therefore I think it is extremely important -- in order to have this debate come to some kind of successful resolution, and for whoever becomes Speaker in this House -- to come forward in a manner that would allow the most critical issue here, the impartiality of the Chair, to be maintained.
[3:00]
It is extremely important that we stick to the language of the motion and do not embark upon long and rather flowery histories of the office of the Speaker, nor upon our suspicions about what may or may not be the motive for the intent of this motion at this time, because there is nothing we can provide that substantiates what it is we're arguing. All that seeks to do is to play politics with the office of the Speaker, which I think is not only unfortunate in terms of this House, but sets a really bad precedent for future parliamentary debate around any future amendments there may be with respect to that office.
So I think it is important -- and I would urge members of this House if we are to have a protracted debate, as it seems we are going to do, which I think in itself is unfortunate -- that we stick to the language of the motion. If we have objection with the language of the motion because of the precedent it may set with respect to the election of a Speaker -- something that I personally believe is a desirable reform of the Legislative Assembly -- then I think we should speak to that language and not to the rather large and less substantiated issues about the motive of the mover.
Hon. Speaker, I have my own understanding of what takes place in the political realms around us. I also know, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks on the amendment, the factors affecting a Speaker who comes to this chamber through a very partisan type of action, which is an election of one political party or another.
But one reform that we need is to see members in this chamber speak on behalf of the larger constituency -- that is, the province -- and to drop their partisanship when they are in debate. Then we can properly look at the bills that come before us, and in this case this motion, and make sensible decisions with respect to the language of the bill, or in this case the language of the motion. Many years down the road, when all of us are long gone and no longer sit in this chamber, others will not be debating the political temperance of the day; they will be debating the language that we have put in place. Therefore I think we do a disservice to this institution if we do not limit and restrict our remarks specifically to the language that is here.
Let me then do so. I believe that 11(2), where it reads, "Where there is, or is to be, a vacancy," precipitates against the individual, and it is precipitous of an event about to happen. I think that that is undesirable language for us to have. I believe therefore that we should amend that. In moving this amendment, we would remove the words "or is to be." The amendment would read: "Where there is a vacancy in the Office of Speaker whether at the opening of a Parliament...." It would follow as it's printed in the original motion.
If we are to make that amendment, then it would seem to me that nothing in section 11 precipitates that the incumbent is to be removed. Secondly, if the incumbent should make a personal decision, and personal only, then it provides an opportunity for this House to take a step forward in reforming the institution and having a free election by secret ballot -- something that I think is a desirable reform.
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Clark: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made, I think, an excellent and thoughtful case for a small amendment which may help allay some concerns of members of the House -- particularly that member. In that respect, the government is prepared to support this very reasonable amendment.
J. Tyabji: My only submission on the amendment would be that I hope the amendment will make the motion acceptable to all members of the House, notwithstanding political issues outside the debates that occur in the chamber, and that we can then move to some of the pressing issues before the House, such as the reply to the Speech from the Throne and the imminent tabling of the budget.
Amendment approved.
On the motion as amended.
A. Warnke: I rose yesterday in this House to respond to an amendment put forward by the official opposition. We found certainly one very revealing clause regarding the implications of the motion that has been put before us. I would suggest that the implications of the motion put forward here by the Premier are pretty profound. The language and intent -- some of the things that we debated yesterday -- also illustrate the problems accompanying this motion. As well, given the reactions by some hon. members on the government side.... Actually, I appreciate it when any member from that side gets up and attempts to defend
[ Page 9496 ]
the motion. We would really like to hear as many people on this as possible. Nonetheless, what I've gathered from that is that there is perhaps still an important lesson here for us to learn.
Some members have pointed to events in history to illustrate some very basic principles that are at stake in the office of the Speaker and at stake here in terms of the implications it has for the office in the future. I want to especially compliment my new colleague from Matsqui. In speaking to the amendment earlier today, the member from Matsqui put forward some very basic ideas that would be worth noting as well.
Back to the main motion. The reference to history is not just to give us a little history lesson. The office of the Speaker has evolved and taken its twists and turns since 1376. It is worthwhile to note that there have been Speakers of many different temperaments and characters, and some Speakers have been unpopular to the assembly and the people. Certainly I can think of two unpopular Speakers -- Empson and Dudley -- who were servants of Henry VII, I believe. They were elected Speakers in spite of their unpopularity.
History reflects what the Speaker has become, and what the Speaker must be. Hence some of my colleagues have made reference to Arthur Onslow, Speaker of the British House of Commons between 1728 and 1761, who contributed so much to elevating the office of the Speaker. I think it's incumbent upon us to refer to Shaw LeFevre as well, Speaker of the House of Commons between 1839 and 1857, who initiated the last phase in establishing the Speaker's independence, and refrain from political action. We know that the interference implied in this motion actually encourages one to be partisan and engage in political action. I thought we had done away with that under the leadership of Shaw LeFevre. I thought that since that time, no matter whether a Speaker was elected as a partisan -- and indeed, hon. Speaker, you were elected as a partisan, and we all recognize that....
Political parties have evolved since the mid-nineteenth century. On another occasion I have expressed my view on how political parties in the twentieth century have adversely affected the development of democratic institutions. Just because political parties exist doesn't mean to say we embrace every aspect of a political party, because there have been tendencies in political parties to affirm some very anti-democratic ideas. If one wants to talk about reform, one of the first places to begin is the reformation of the nature and organization of political parties.
So much has been said in recent years about the reform of institutions and the parliamentary institution itself. I find it a touch hypocritical for political parties to suggest that parliament should reform, but the political parties themselves don't need reform. I think that's where reform really begins.
The question implied by the motion is that the executive branch of government, symbolized by the head of the executive council, introduced a motion in such a manner that we have to reflect on what implications that motion will have on the office of the Speaker. I'm very sad that the amendment we put forward trying to remove the clause "or for any other reason" was not accepted by the other side. After the arguments had been put forward, I would have seen that there were certain problems with that particular clause and that perhaps it could be removed. That's the point that the member for Cariboo North missed completely. But he has a habit of doing that anyway.
I believe that the strict independence of the Speaker outside this Legislature prior to occupying his seat can be and has been undermined in this age of the rise of political parties. As you know, upon election as a member, the Speaker is usually a member of a political party -- unless he's looking for incumbency, as is the case in the British House of Commons, where Speakers do look for re-election as independents. I believe that was the case with the Hon. John Fraser as well, who asserted himself as an independent in the 1988 election. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe he campaigned on that.
[3:15]
The member is chosen for appointment as Speaker by the most partisan of members, the Premier or the Prime Minister, and then is pro forma elected by the Legislature or the Commons, as was described by my colleague for Richmond Centre. Even though we recognize that there is this imposition of political parties on the Legislature and on the Commons, we also recognize that when the Speaker occupies this chair, the operation of the House demands a clear separation between the office of the Speaker and the executive council, which is led by the first minister and the rest of the council. So despite the omnipresence of political parties in parliamentary democracies, this separation between the office of the Speaker and the executive council has to remain intact.
One way to interfere with this separation, with the independence of the office of the Speaker, is to have some means available to the executive council and to the first minister to exercise influence or intimidation. I'm not suggesting that the present Premier is intimidating the Speaker, but I'm sure suspicious of it. If one looks at the language of this motion, one cannot help but conclude that it implies that the independence of the office of the Speaker has been undermined. The motion before us, in actual terms as well as implied, means that it is very possible and very easy for the executive council and the first minister to exercise influence and intimidation against the office of the Speaker. That is the reason that we on this side feel so strongly that the motion being introduced in the House -- by the Premier, of all people -- has such a possibly traumatic effect on parliamentary democracy and on the Legislature.
I guarantee that this motion would be repugnant in other parliamentary democracies. This motion certainly would be repugnant to other legislatures and to the federal Parliament if it were so presented. One can bet very easily that there would be a very strong reaction, just as what we're witnessing in this House these days, to such a proposed amendment. Indeed, other parliamentary democracies throughout the world, especially those that are newly formed, would be most suspicious -- and quite rightly so -- of a proposed motion such as this.
That is the reason that members on this side are so strong in trying to point out to members opposite as well as to all members in this House: reconsider what is being presented in this motion, because it has tremendous future implications for parliamentary democracy in this province.
Hon. Speaker, under the guise of reform we're encouraged to accept this motion. But I think every member should seriously ask: is there really a secret ballot? I was really appalled by the member for Surrey-Whalley suggesting that everyone can put their name on the ballot. That's insulting. The fact is that we know realistically that the fix is in. If this motion passes -- and I hope it does not -- and is put into place, and action is taken by members opposite, we will see revealed before us that the fix was in. Those members opposite had better be very careful about what they do if this motion passes, because it will come back to haunt them.
[ Page 9497 ]
Hon. Speaker, to a certain extent what is going on in this chamber is already known by the public. The people of this province are not stupid. They can watch television; they can read. They can also sense what is occurring in this chamber and in British Columbian politics today. Indeed, I received a letter this morning that showed me in very clear terms that they're very upset with the New Democratic government. I think it's worthwhile noting that that person lives in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard.
I've listened to government members talk about the motion, and I'm very surprised that they avoided discussing the substance of the motion itself. We are often accused of it. But when we look at what has been presented by government members in this House, the fact is that the substance is not terribly impressive. It just ain't there. They have not dealt with some of the charges that have quite rightly been made on this side of the House. We must make those charges. If they are wrong, then contradict them in very clear terms. We have mentioned that one implication of this motion is the prospect of executive interference in the legislative branch of government and the office of the Speaker. I have yet to hear one member from the government side develop a critique of that one, single argument.
In developing an argument against the motion, members on this side have asked: why now? Of the few members on the government side who got up and spoke, none have put forward a case as to why now. They really haven't. It seems to me that the arguments are pretty strong on this side and there is hardly any defence of the motion from the government side. On that basis, one has to throw out the warning of who in the long run will have the confidence of the people of British Columbia. It's time they had a very close look at whether they're going to enjoy the confidence of British Columbians in the near future, and in the next two years.
The problem that I especially have is that if we leave the motion intact, then every Speaker from here on is subject to being undermined and overthrown by the executive council and the governing party. After all, especially in a majority government, the governing party decides how this place is to be run. If the numbers are on that side, then the office of the Speaker can be undermined by that alone, provided the means are there -- and the means are there with this motion. That is repugnant. It is not enough to put forward a motion that challenges the Speaker at this time, but it is enough to challenge the office of the Speaker from here on out. I find that very repugnant. It's not enough just to undermine the independence of the Speaker and all the rights and privileges of the Speaker. I mentioned yesterday how this motion undermines the independence of the Speaker. It also undermines the rights and privileges of every member in this assembly. And if it turns out that this motion is passed, it will undermine the rights and privileges of members in succeeding assemblies. The effect is far more profound than dealing with some sort of matter in the present.
It is therefore not at all inappropriate to use terms such as the possibility of manipulation, coercion and intimidation. These are very real prospects for the future. Indeed, if that's not enough, this motion is flawed all over the place, not only the terms of the clause that we pointed out yesterday but also when you take a look at the details. I suppose we have to talk about the spirit of the details, but we can talk a little about the details as well. We can take a look at section 11(b)(4): "Members wishing to indicate their choice for the Office of Speaker shall print the first and last name of a Member on the ballot paper...." -- and all the rest of it. It's very interesting that the national Parliament just went through a procedure of electing their Speaker, and it was cumbersome. It perhaps may be seen afterwards as not the best or appropriate way of electing the Speaker. Was there any consideration given to a preferential ballot where people number their preferences, meaning, in effect, that you could very effectively expedite the election of the Speaker? In connection with this, what about 11(b)(7)? "If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, the name of the candidate having the least number of total votes shall be excluded from subsequent ballots." There is no 5 percent clause which we see in similar legislation. Indeed, the motion might not be well thought out in other ways.
In 11(a)(3) of this motion, there is a quotation: "During the election of a Speaker, there shall be no debate." Well, that's rather obvious, but it also reveals a certain kind of ignorance where the Crown does not matter. Surely the rules are very clear that when there is no Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will not tolerate the formation of a parliament or having debate and so on. I'm just wondering who put this together. The language is not very well thought out.
But as to the principle of the motion, which is extremely important, I would say that the secret ballot is not really what it claims to be here. It is a sham. The fix is in, and this will be revealed. The members must understand what they are doing in terms of the implications for this institution. I would plead with the Premier to withdraw this motion simply because it encourages executive interference in this place. As a matter of fact, I would really like to see the Premier withdraw the motion and get on with the business demanded by the people of British Columbia.
I am convinced, as is my colleague for Surrey-White Rock, that it will divide parliament. I believe that one of the other members mentioned this. Supposing, hon. Speaker, that you are to step down. It casts some suspicion, and therefore confidence in the succeeding Chair will not exist. The partisanship of the Speaker will always be suspect, were it to change, and for that reason my colleague for Surrey-White Rock is quite correct that such a suspicion will create an environment in this House that is not what we want, and certainly not what the people of British Columbia want.
[3:30]
The Commons, over the centuries, has fought so hard against the interference of real power, whether it comes from the old executive, under the Crown, or the new executive, under the Premier -- the first ministers and executive council. The Commons fought so hard against the interference of the executive in the legislative branch of government and the rights and duties and privileges of legislators because this is the law-making body. The rights and privileges of legislators must be protected, and I don't like any encroachment on government by the executive council or by executive power, no matter where it comes from, that the executive council, or by executive power, no matter where it comes from, that imposes on the basic rights and privileges of legislators.
Therefore I think it is entirely appropriate to craft a motion that makes the election of a Speaker applicable for the first time at the next parliament. If that is done, then the suspicion we have about the interference of the executive council in the office of the Speaker will be considerably alleviated. I still find the phrase we fought against yesterday to be quite repugnant. Nonetheless, if this motion would be amended by suggesting that it should take effect only upon commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament, then I think we can go a long way toward alleviating the fears and dealing with the possible adverse implications of the motion
[ Page 9498 ]
that is before us. We do not want to see a Speaker who is partisan or who is perceived to be partisan or to be under the influence of partisanship exercised by the executive council. We do not want to see any development that would integrate partisanship into the office of the Speaker.
I have one other point. Members on the other side, especially of the New Democratic Party, have often expressed that they don't like the American system; they do not want Canadians to become American. I'll actually have a little more to say on this subject with regard to the throne speech. Specifically on this subject, I suggest that we are well on the way to developing something akin to a congressional system of government for the following reasons. If this government wants the Speaker to be partisan -- because in order to protect themselves Speakers have to be partisan -- then this flaw or defect in the motion before us will have to be ironed out. It can be ironed out only by adopting an entirely different model of government. If we want a congressional style of government, let's have an honest debate about it. That is another warning I want to throw out to members opposite who have claimed on so many occasions to be anti-American.
My time for discussing this motion is short, therefore I want to move that this motion be amended by the insertion of the following: "(14) This standing order shall take effect upon the commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament." That amendment to the motion is seconded by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I will speak to the amendment.
The Speaker: Having moved the amendment, I would ask that the member's time be adjusted accordingly. Please proceed, hon. member.
On the amendment.
A. Warnke: The reason I believe the amendment is so essential is that there is a basic suspicion, as some members have pointed out. I want to really affirm over and over again as well that there has been enough rumour and all the rest of it. Of course, we can't always just listen to rumour. There has been enough expressed on this whole controversy as to how the office of the Speaker should be changed. Certainly it has an impact on the present occupant of that seat.
As has been described on many occasions and eloquently stated by my colleague from Matsqui and by me yesterday, the implications are possibly very severe and profound. It may have an adverse effect on how parliamentary democracy has to be run. This motion that has been put forward by the Premier is antagonistic toward some basic principles of parliamentary democracy. Because it is so antagonistic, it is extremely important to alleviate any suspicion, any anomaly as to how parliamentary democracy is run. As a result, it is extremely important to put forward an amendment such as this to delay, essentially, so as not to create any sort of suspicion about the present occupant of the office of the Speaker, the executive council, the Premier or anyone.
If the Premier is truly intent on reform, there is a way to deal with that. I think that the amendment I put forward is not only reasonable but the best compromise to a very difficult but messy situation introduced by the Premier and the executive council. I'm trying to find some means by which we can have it both ways -- the both ways being the preservation of the office of the Speaker for the remainder of the thirty-fifth parliament. I think there has been enough goodwill expressed throughout this chamber, hon. Speaker, that you will have the confidence of all members of this chamber for the remainder of the thirty-fifth parliament.
We would have that, and we would have something else: the prospect for genuine reform in electing the Speaker. It is very interesting that until the imposition of political parties on western democracies, there was a time in the British Parliament when the Speaker was truly elected as an independent, and that was recognized. I recognize as well as anybody in this country the imposition throughout the course of the twentieth century of the political parties on the Speaker's office. Nonetheless, the independence of the Speaker in this chamber has been retained throughout the twentieth century, and I think that it should continue. What I'm afraid of is that the trend we've seen in the twentieth century of the imposition of political parties on the parliamentary process and on democratic institutions is still carrying on, and we must be suspicious of that.
To avoid that kind of suspicion, I think the best compromise is to continue to recognize the present Chair and to put forward a reform in which we truly, by an independent vote by all members in this House, select a Speaker at the beginning of the thirty-sixth parliament. Go that route, and I think we've actually made some tremendous strides in this parliament. It would be something that I would be very proud of, because we would have done something to reverse the trend of politics in the twentieth century toward the executive council's interference in legislative matters. It's something that I think every member of this Legislature must seriously consider. I think I am providing a way out here. We can have it both ways: we can preserve the nature of the office of the Speaker, and then we don't have to be concerned with the profound implications of that; yet we will be on the road to genuine reform where it is needed, to enhance the independence and integrity of the office of the Speaker. I think we have a tremendous opportunity here which all members of this Legislature can capitalize on, so that's what I'm proposing.
I hope I have made an argument of sober second thought -- since we don't have a second chamber -- that reflects on some actions that could be taken in this House that could have profound implications for the future. Take action in such a way that we have before us an opportunity by which we can be on the road of what I would call real and true reform. "Reform" is a fancy word that is sometimes tossed around in politics these days, and sometimes I say it about politicians outside this chamber. But some politicians across this country talk about reform and changing institutions without understanding the implications of those changes. If we sit down after a sober second thought, we have a tremendous opportunity to institute change. And we could have it both ways: we could preserve your integrity, hon. Speaker -- and we would support that -- as well as being on the road to reform and setting the base for something we can be proud of in succeeding parliaments.
D. Symons: It's my pleasure to get up and support the amendment made by my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, because I think it is a very reasoned amendment that should answer all the concerns that have been expressed by many members of this House. I think it should also be acceptable to the government members -- particularly to the Premier, who put forth the original motion -- because in it we find that all of the concerns that have been mentioned have been adequately addressed.
When I was listening intently to various members speaking here, many times questions were asked: "Why at
[ Page 9499 ]
this time? What is the ulterior motive? What is behind this?" These questions kept coming forward again and again.
In a sense, I think that if we delay the implementation of this motion until the beginning of the next parliament of B.C., that will allay all of those concerns, because then all members in this House -- and I'm sure I can speak for every member on the opposition benches -- will heartily endorse the concepts contained in having a secret ballot election of the Speaker.
But we also feel very strongly that this should not be done midstream, as currently appears to be happening; this should be done at the beginning of a session. We have a Speaker who has been duly elected for this session, and we endorse and support the Speaker. I believe it is important to say at this time that until the end of the session, we should continue with the arrangements as the House rules stood at the time that election took place. Otherwise what seems to be happening is that we have, in effect, a Star Chamber arrangement, where the executive council can get together, decide that they'll bring forth a motion and, with the majority they have in this House, rewrite the rules any time they please. When that is the case, it compromises the office of the Speaker and any other person it may care to target. So I think it's important for the integrity of this legislative chamber, for the integrity of the office of Speaker -- if not of the individual person that occupies it -- that we maintain that the whole system be fair and just, and that it follow the rules.
[3:45]
It would give us time, if we delayed the implementation of this until the beginning of the next parliament, also to consider further reforms -- some of those have been mentioned today -- to be introduced on the first day of the thirty-sixth parliament. Because then we can bring forth not just one reform of the way this House operates, but many reforms that should be brought forth before this legislative chamber.
Other members have mentioned other jurisdictions where the Speaker is elected in the ways proposed by this motion. If we look at them, I do not believe that one of them in Canada, where we still have democracy, adopted this secret ballot system for choosing a Speaker in midstream. Why is B.C. doing it another way? Why are we looking at a method that will abrogate the rules of the House that were in place at the beginning of this particular parliament? I believe it is important that we do as the others have done; it is important that these changes are made in a timely way, in a way that will not give the impression that there's some untoward or secret agenda in hand. If there was to be a resignation in the office of Speaker within the next short period during this sitting, it would raise in the public's mind the idea that what the opposition members have been saying these last few days was indeed true. It would give credence to every concern that was raised in this House. It would put a lie to the assurances that the government is giving us -- that this is simply bringing in reforms in the House -- because it would prove the innuendo, the suggestions that have been raised in the press and in the minds of many of the public, that the government is indeed trying to do in the current Speaker. If that is their agenda and the Speaker resigns, it would be nothing but proof that all those thoughts, suggestions and ideas were valid. It would bring discredit to the government, to the Premier and to every member in this House who would vote to do that.
If we are to maintain our integrity in the eyes of the public of British Columbia, it is important that we do not carry forth this sort of secret or possibly hidden agenda. It will do irreparable harm to the low opinion that many people already have of politicians. If they see politicians behaving in a manner in this Legislature that will reinforce the view that politicians are a sneaky, self-serving lot, this particular motion will put us, and the idea of where politicians stand, further down -- if that's possible -- in people's minds in this province.
I find that the previous amendments that have been brought before this House during this session -- the dropping of the words "or is to be" or the words "or for any other reason" -- were predicated on the same concern that I expressed: that there is something deeper than reform in the motion now before us. And I believe that following the suggestions and the motion made by the member for Richmond-Steveston will allay those concerns, that everybody can come out of this with their heads held high, and that we would all feel a sigh of relief. Then the House could get back to the business that we really should have been doing for these last few days.
There is no reason whatsoever that this motion should have come before the House at the time it did. Indeed, we should have finished off the Speech from the Throne and discussed that. The budget should come before the House so we can discuss it and then get on with the real business of dealing with the real issues facing the people of this province -- that is, the issues of jobs and the economy. Those are the issues we should be spending time on in this House, not trying to subvert the government's plans to use some ulterior and sneaky way of adjusting the rules of this House to suit their own purposes. I think that we have to spend more time in this House dealing with the real issues of the province. Indeed, the introduction of this issue at this time has delayed our ability to get on with the real issues before the House.
Why? Why on earth should we be discussing this at a time when such pressing needs as the environment, as the forest practices in this province -- and indeed what's happening, mentioned during question period, where other jurisdictions are looking at our forest practices here and making some serious decisions as to how it will affect the economy of this province.... And what are we doing, hon. Speaker? We are bringing forth a motion -- who knows why at this particular time -- that's taking valuable time from the real issues facing the people of British Columbia. The opposition members would heartily like to get on with that business and feel strongly that we should not be wasting the time of this House on such issues. I repeat that other jurisdictions have not done it this way -- why should we?
I heartily support the amendment put forward that any action on this be delayed and implemented at the beginning of the next parliament of British Columbia.
J. Tyabji: I've been sitting through the amendments of the official opposition with some interest. The only question I have on this amendment is: who is writing these amendments? It's very clear when you look at the language of the motion that, if this amendment passes and this Speaker in the course of her decision-making decides to resign, the official opposition is giving the government a clear route to appoint another Speaker in the course of this session. That is all this amendment will do.
I can't support this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that on a personal level I submitted a news release on the news items that were appearing on the aspects of this which were outside the work of this chamber. The work of this chamber is to address the motion and the language of the motion before the House. And if we look at the motion before us, it happens to be a reform package to allow for the election of a Speaker. Now, although I support this Speaker
[ Page 9500 ]
-- I think this Speaker has done an outstanding job -- if this Speaker for whatever reason chooses to resign, I wholeheartedly support the election of a Speaker, whether that be in this session or after the next election.
I don't know what the Liberal opposition is thinking, to be introducing an amendment to preclude the election of a Speaker in this session; but that is what this amendment does. I find it interesting that the new Leader of the Opposition is distancing himself from this debate, and the debate is primarily taking place from the back bench of the Liberal caucus. I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition come and defend this amendment. I think that if we look at this amendment -- if anybody supports the actual election of the Speaker -- it is indefensible in that light, if we are to choose to have reform as soon as possible.
Having said that, as the Speaker and the members of this chamber are aware, outside these chambers I have been a very strong advocate of this Speaker maintaining her position. However, the motion does not preclude her maintaining her position. I hope that she will do so and not cave in to whatever political pressures might be put on her outside of this chamber to step down. If she does choose to step down, then I hope that this amendment will not pass and that we will have a democratic election of a Speaker in this assembly.
U. Dosanjh: Essentially, I concur with the views expressed by the member for Okanagan East. Hon. Speaker, I believe that this would handcuff this Legislature and prevent it from electing a Speaker in the event that you are unable to continue to act in your current position.
One of the problems I've had with this whole debate is that the Liberal opposition has, from the commencement of the debate, continued to cast aspersions on the motives of hon. members of this House, as well as on what somebody might have said to the hon. Speaker. I believe that the members of the Liberal opposition have already done irreparable damage to the integrity of that office through the tone and contents of this debate. They really should reconsider what they're doing. If they want to debate the essence of this motion, they should do so. There is nothing whatsoever in this motion that would force any Speaker to resign at any time. There are lawyers in the opposition ranks; perhaps they can get some legal advice if they require it. I'm prepared to offer my free legal services to them. I don't have any difficulty in doing that.
I have been troubled, as have other members of this House....
Interjection.
U. Dosanjh: I have a louder voice than yours, sir, so perhaps you'll just listen to me for a minute.
I and other members of this House have been troubled by the fact that we are not debating the issue. In very precise terms, the issue before us is, should a vacancy occur in the office of the Speaker, that we then have an election for that position. That is the essence of this motion. Basically what the Liberal amendment does is handcuff us and not allow us to elect our Speaker if for some unforeseen reason, hon. Speaker, you are unable to continue in your position. I strongly oppose this amendment.
L. Fox: Let me say at the outset that I hesitate to stand up and enter into this debate because I am concerned that the level of the debate, in itself, has questioned the integrity of the Chair and the Speaker herself.
I cannot support the amendment, primarily for the reasons given by the member for Okanagan East. I truly believe that the Speaker herself has the authority and the ability, and is a strong enough individual, to resist the pressures, if there are any, and the coercion, if there is any, and to stand up for the integrity of the Speaker's office according to the historic principles of that office in this Legislature.
Hon. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in what you're going to do, if in fact there is any truth to the rumours. Let me just talk about that for a moment. I've had some experience in the last four weeks about what the press knows and what they write. I can tell you, I've learned a lot about how some members may, in fact, take a hint or a rumour and draw it into a reality. I know full well that one should be debating this issue based not on what has been presented in the media or heard outside this Legislature but on the principle of reforming how we select the Speaker. I support that reform -- obviously, given the decisions I've made in the last week.
[4:00]
Once again I want to reiterate that I'm confident that the Speaker will resist pressure or coercion, if there is any, and stand up for the high principle that the chair demands.
D. Schreck: I rise to oppose the amendment. I think my friend from Okanagan East said it most concisely; that is, there's no reason to postpone fundamental reform, and whether or not a vacancy occurs is an entirely separate matter. What we see in the amendment before us is the type of tactic that the Liberal opposition has taken under a succession of leaders in their short two years in this House; that is, what it can't waffle on, it tries to postpone. At some time it's time to make decisions and get on.
What we find before us is another step in a series of parliamentary reforms. I'm pleased to be part of a government that has reformed its own caucus by treating back-bench members on a much higher basis than ever before. Many caucus-cabinet committees deal with matters that end up coming before this Legislature, and many matters end up being dealt with in the administration of government. We've seen similar reforms in the operation of all-party committees of this Legislature, which formerly existed on paper only. They have actively travelled the province, held hearings and put reports before this Legislature. I've seen reforms implemented through the office of the Speaker. There are a lot of changes and reforms for all members of this House to be proud of. The motion put forward by the Premier for the election of a Speaker when a vacancy occurs is another step in that tradition of reform.
In the course of this debate I have heard words that disturbed me greatly. They obviously did not quite cross the line, but by casting aspersions and speculation on people's integrity and motives they came very close to crossing the line of what we accept as parliamentary. I'm offended in two ways. I'm offended because I hold the office of the Speaker in the highest regard, as I believe we all should. When the Speaker herself is absent from this chamber, any one of us can sit in the chair and act as Speaker temporarily, and many on both sides of the House have. I believe we have 75 intensely partisan members in this Legislature; there's nothing wrong with that. We got elected on that basis to represent the policies and programs of the parties that we stood for when we stood for election. But when any one of us sits at the table to chair a committee, replaces the Speaker during the Speaker's absence or chairs Committee A, we take off our partisan hats and uphold the honour and distinction of the office. So I am offended greatly when anyone in this
[ Page 9501 ]
House casts aspersions on the integrity and the office of the Speaker. I am equally offended that anyone in this House would cast aspersions on the loyalty and partisan commitment of the 51 New Democrat MLAs who are committed to the program of this government.
I know that my friend and colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon was elected as a New Democrat, as was I, and as the former Speaker, John Reynolds, showed.... John Reynolds represented the constituency next to mine. I campaigned and was at some all-candidates' meetings with John Reynolds during the 1991 campaign. John Reynolds was known to be an intense partisan outside the House, and he was respected for his abilities as an intense partisan. When John Reynolds put on that black robe and sat in that chair, he was held with the same respect that every member of this House is held: in a neutral capacity, sitting in the office of Chair, sitting at the table, or chairing a committee. That is a characteristic -- a difference -- but it is important that we all understand and that the public understand.
I know that my friend and colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon is one of 51 loyal New Democrats committed to the program of the government, and I know that whoever is in the office of Speaker is an independent officer of this House. I hope we all keep that in mind, and that whenever a decision is made by whoever holds the office, going ahead with this motion of reform is a step that will advance this Legislature and put it more in the tone and spirit that our government has shown in advancing this Legislature through a series of reforms. It's not time to follow the Liberal way of stalling once again; it's time to get on with a step of reform. When that may be acted on and used is not in the hands of 74 members in this House; it is in the hands of only one member, and that member deserves the respect of all of us.
J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Dalton: In the gallery I see a colleague and member of the Vancouver bar, Mr. David Griffiths. Mr. Griffiths is here today to meet with members of the Victoria bar this evening, and I would like the House to make him welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've listened to the comments in this House since this amendment was put forward. I believe that the members are either deceiving themselves or don't really understand what the motion is all about. I've heard the member for Vancouver-Kingsway state that the opposition is questioning the credibility of the office of the Speaker of the House, which we have not done. One has to ask about the motivation of this government in bringing its first item of legislative reform -- the election of the Speaker -- to this chamber halfway through a mandate when it has been common knowledge in the media and around these corridors that the government is not happy with the incumbent.
No matter what these people say, no matter what high principles they clothe themselves in, the reality is that this motion has come forward because the New Democrat caucus and the office of the Premier have an agenda to remove the current Speaker and replace her with someone they would prefer. They have had a number of opportunities to bring forth this amendment. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, as deputy Government House Leader, knows that full well. I'm sure he has perused the orders of the day for the last three sessions and has seen a bill on the order paper that would have allowed the election of the Speaker. He knows that it existed for the last three sessions. Why did the government not deal with it then? Does anyone have an answer for that? No.
The government didn't deal with it then because they didn't need to deal with it then. When they decided that they wanted to remove the current Speaker from in this chamber, they said: "Gee, here's a nice way we could do it. Guess what -- we might even get a pat on the back for bringing in a reform. Isn't this nice and tricky. We can pretend we're going to bring in a reform when actually we can remove the person we appointed in the first place and replace her with someone else we all want." The idea behind this amendment is that it allows the government to show its true intentions. If their intentions are that the current Speaker continue in that capacity -- we all know that the current Speaker would like to continue to sit in that capacity -- then why not bring in the amendment we put forward, which would allow for the reform to go forward and for the election of a Speaker at the next parliament?
I don't know if the two independent members of various ridings who are currently representing Victoria know what the rumours are, have taken the time to talk to the current incumbent or have bothered to talk to the members of the New Democratic caucus, who have let their intentions be known very clearly. All the members of the government caucus and the independents can say what they want, but the truth is in the pudding. If they look at this amendment, they will know....
J. Tyabji: Point of order, hon. Speaker. As entertaining as this is in portraying the character of the person speaking, it's not on the amendment.
The Speaker: Thank you for the point of order, hon. member. It will be a reminder to the member who has the floor to address the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I accept the wisdom of the member for Okanagan East in her incredible judgment. But the reality is that I am speaking to the amendment, which brings into question and makes very clear the true intentions of the government. If they're really concerned about bringing forth the reform, then they will be very....
U. Dosanjh: Point of order, hon. Speaker. For the last couple of days I have resisted standing up every couple of minutes. Finally, I raise the point of order. The hon. member who was just speaking is imputing certain motives and intentions to other members of the House, and he does so in a rather blanket fashion. I would ask that he stop that.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for your point of order. I was listening to the remarks of the hon. member, and I did not hear anything disorderly. But it is always good to remind all hon. members that temperance and moderation in language is the hallmark of parliamentary debate. I ask the member to continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, my intention is not to impugn the motives of the members opposite. My intention is merely to draw to the attention of the public -- the people who elect us to come here -- the circumstances regarding this amendment, which we all understand, and to let them determine the motives of the government and the Premier. That is their job. The members opposite are not accountable to me; they're accountable to their electorate and to the people who put them here. It's important that those people
[ Page 9502 ]
understand what's going on in this House and what the government is doing to the integrity of this House. That's the reason for this amendment. It allows the government to show their true intentions. It allows them to say: "Yes, we're in favour of a reform. After two and a half years, we've finally seen the light. We are in favour of this reform. We aren't sure about all the other reforms that we've been talking about for some time, and the reforms they talked about during the last election, but we've finally come to the realization that one reform is necessary." It allows them to say that they've finally woken up and that they really don't have some other intentions. It allows them to bring in the reform to maintain the integrity of the House and the office of the Speaker, yet still maintain their motion, their reform -- their changes to this House.
[4:15]
So here we get to see what their true intentions are. That's why this amendment is here. We get to see what the government really wants to achieve. Is it a reform or is it something else? If it's a reform, they will accept the amendment and they will understand the reason for it coming forward. If they don't, and they have other intentions, then quite clearly they would find a need to reject this amendment, because it wouldn't be in keeping with their agenda and their plans. So I will see the way the hon. members vote.
G. Wilson: With respect to this amendment....
I'm going to resist the temptation, as great as it is, to comment with respect to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who says that we have all read the media and that we have seen what's at work in the media. I had hoped that over the last number of months there would be members of this Legislative Assembly who would have recognized that the use of the media to do their political hatchet work is not exactly desirable to protect democracy in the province. Let me simply say this: whatever is or is not available in the media for us to look at, and how accurate or lacking in accuracy that may be, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in this amendment that is going to preclude any kind of pressure to move the incumbent from that position. The only difference is that if the pressure is exerted and the incumbent is removed, in the wisdom of this particular amendment, we will have a government-appointed Speaker rather than a democratically elected one, and that doesn't seem very bright to me.
It seems to me that we have had a protracted filibuster, almost, on a motion of reform of this institution. Clearly the government has a majority in this House. Clearly the arguments have been made on the language and the intention of this motion. Unless this is indeed political fodder being put out by one side or the other, surely it is now time to call the question on this motion and have some vote taken. Let's get on with the business of the people of this province.
F. Gingell: I was most interested to hear the member for Vancouver-Kensington stand up just now and say some things about how members on this side of the House may be impugning the attributes and intentions of government members. I think that if the member for Vancouver-Kensington reads today's Hansard tomorrow morning, he will discover that his opening remarks accused this side of the House of hypocrisy. I think that's the exact wording, in fact. I find it very strange that he now suggests that for some reason it's all very well for it to come from his mouth, but it's not acceptable for members of the opposition to really think about and consider what the intention of this whole exercise is.
I've listened to the independent members who have spoken, and I appreciate that if the circumstances were such that the Speaker were to resign, and this motion had not passed, we could be left with the present practice. But Speakers don't just suddenly resign. I know some unfortunate accident could happen, but in the normal set of circumstances this House would be in the position to make a change before a new Speaker is elected. Some agreement between all members of this House could be reached that would ensure that should the office of the Speaker fall vacant through some unfortunate happening, a truly secret ballot election of a new Speaker could occur.
Because this is being pushed at this time, and because I believe that the circumstances I have described are perfectly reasonable, I believe that there is truly a secret agenda. It's all very well....
U. Dosanjh: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, the speeches on the other side have been replete with the term "secret agenda," and again the hon. member has used the term "secret agenda" -- on the part of the government benches, obviously. If that is not imputing motives, I don't know what is.
The Speaker: In reply to the point of order, hon. member, I regret I didn't hear the exact words. I would just ask the member who has the floor...
Interjection.
The Speaker: I'm already ruling on the point of order, hon. member.
...if in his remarks he was intending to impute improper motives to any other member of this House.
F. Gingell: No, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Continue then.
F. Gingell: But I believe there is a secret agenda. A secret agenda is purely and simply what it is: someone has an agenda, and it's hidden away. It's in your desk, or it's underneath the blotter, or it's in your back pocket. The fact that you have a secret agenda does not imply in any way that you are hypocritical -- as the member for Vancouver-Kensington imputed to us.
The Speaker: I would remind the member to direct his comments through the Chair.
F. Gingell: I truly believe that there is a secret agenda. I think we're dealing here with an issue that we all support in principle -- everyone of us. We all of us want there to be in this House a secret ballot for the election of a Speaker. But we are not going to support it coming in in the opening days of the third session of this thirty-fifth parliament. I know that we can have an arrangement whereby we will ensure that a secret ballot takes place if a true and genuine vacancy takes place. We all pray that that doesn't happen.
So who are we trying to kid? If this government caucus really has no intention whatsoever of in any way encouraging the Speaker to resign, then they can support this amendment. I give them our commitment that, should there become a vacancy by some unfortunate happening, we will do whatever they require and cooperate in every way
[ Page 9503 ]
possible to ensure that this House is able to elect the next Speaker by secret ballot. But I believe that there is a secret agenda, and I am not going to accept that. I believe that our Speaker is our Speaker. She protects our rights and privileges, and I am proud to play my part in trying to protect hers.
D. Jarvis: I'm up here again to speak against this main motion, but I'm now standing up to speak on the amendment. I'm very uncomfortable getting up and speaking at this time, because I spoke last night and again this morning. My uncomfortable feeling must be related to you, hon. Speaker, in the sense that you have been standing around here for two days listening to everyone talk about the Speaker -- without being able to enter into the debate. I bet you're dying to.
As I said, I'm not in favour of what's going on here, which is ostensibly due to the question of impartiality. The impartiality of the Chair is in question. Although you were appointed by the Premier, and that may be considered in itself partial, it appears from what I've seen, read and heard that the aura of the position overcomes that partisanship in most instances, and the impartiality always seems to take over. The independence of a Speaker seems to rise and come to the fore. That is ostensibly why we are here and why this House seems to have some sense of order and goes through its business.
This amendment, which says that the standing order will take effect upon the commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament, is probably the way it should be, in my reasoning. We have been sitting here talking about reform. The time for reform is at the end of a session and the beginning of a parliament, not at this time. All we're doing is creating partisanship and arguing back and forth.
How do we accept a change in the rules when it occurs in midstream? This is probably the main question and why the opposition party is against it. It is felt the change is only because the Premier has perhaps lost confidence in his impartial, or partial, appointee of the thirty-fifth parliament. What else are we to believe when there is a change in midstream? We all hear out in the corridors and read in the paper what the reasons are, but to discuss them here in this chamber would only bring out deep personalities. As in most cases, these are only rumours and innuendoes, and it wouldn't really be fair to discuss them.
To be brief, in speaking to this amendment, we are seeing an attempt to discredit the basic integrity of this House, all under the guise of reform. We in the opposition party are for reform. As I said before, we had brought forward statements to that effect and they have been circulated to all the parties -- the two major parties, and I think it's six or seven independents that we have. They're all aware that we were for reform. And one of the ten items in our package of reform was the election of a Speaker -- not in midstream, not at this time, but at the end of the session or the beginning of the thirty-sixth parliament, which I hope will be soon. That is why this amendment to the main motion is necessary. So let us go ahead with reform of election of the Speaker, but at the proper time and the proper place.
We keep hearing from the independents that the level of debate is denigrating the Chair. Well, as I said before, that in itself does bother me. I have not heard one person in these last few days say anything that could possibly be denigrating or downgrading to the chair or its occupant. I think everyone in this House thinks quite highly of you, hon. Speaker -- those who have spoken.
If it is so repugnant to these backbenchers and their government, then the government has the majority and can close the debate. Why not? Why do they not close down debate? I would suggest to the backbenchers that they ask their House Leader. Therefore the debate must be in order. I think everyone should have an opportunity to discuss it as much as possible. Probably the backbenchers are not allowed to speak freely on this subject and don't understand the ramifications of the motion and the amendments, but they feel that it's bad.
[4:30]
On that basis, I can only say that I believe the amendment to put this on to the beginning of the thirty-sixth parliament, which will probably be within a year and a half, is in order. I recommend that everyone support it.
V. Anderson: First of all, I would like to say how much I appreciate the manner in which the Speaker has managed this particular debate and the decorum and patience with which she has dealt with us. It's greatly appreciated. And as many others have said, we hope it will continue throughout the full length of this parliament. That's not to say we're always going to be agreeable or easy to manage. And that's why it's important that we have a person there who is able to do that.
I also want to say that I appreciate some of the frustration of the members of the government caucus, because perhaps they did not understand the full implication of what they were putting forward. They thought it was going to be a simple and straightforward process. So I can appreciate that when you have that kind of assurance in your mind and things do not go exactly as you like, it becomes a very frustrating process.
I'm also concerned that there seems to be misunderstanding coming from all sides of the House as we work through a particular issue. Perhaps it is that some of us have understood that the parliament in which we meet is a place for dialogue and interaction. It's not simply a place for putting forward ideas that we all agree with; it's a place where we can interact with each other and, in the process, come up with an answer which is better than any of us thought of in the beginning. I think it's important to remember that that's why there are different positions within the House. There is a government, an opposition and independents, so that all of the different views of our constituents will be brought forward. It's unfortunate if we have got into a habit and a pattern whereby that is no longer the case. If that's the case, it does indicate that we need many kinds of reform. One of them is projected in the main motion. But any reform must be in context, and that's what we're struggling with at the moment: the proper time and place, and for the proper purpose.
Some members ask why we are concerned. It is true that the motion itself looks completely innocuous. But we learned long ago that where there is smoke, there is fire. And you need to be careful; you need to check it out. If you get up in the middle of the night and smell smoke but you simply take a quick glance and say that everything looks fine and go back to bed, it will be too late to do anything if you wake up a little later and find that fire has broken out and is now engulfing your house. So if you have a concern, you have to go at it as if there were a fire. Because if we are right about the concern and we go through without dealing with it, it will be too late afterward; the damage will have already been done. So you have to be cautious about that. There's another phrase that we hear very often: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In particular, many accidents could be prevented, but afterward there is no cure if somebody has
[ Page 9504 ]
lost his life because of carelessness. Therefore one cannot wait; if one has a concern, one has to deal with it before it happens.
We're concerned, because we were dealing with the throne speech, and normally that is the first priority of our discussion. In fact, it overrides almost everything else. If need be, it can even override private members' debates on Friday mornings. Why then, even before we got started, was this other item thrown into it? When something different is brought forward unexpectedly, we have to be very careful and ask why. Unfortunately, in the previous sessions of this government, we did not always ask why when the government undertook a particular action, and we were forced to deal with uncertain consequences. At midnight one very telling evening, when the government started to bring in a bill without giving notice of it, the whole House was disrupted. That disruption should not have happened in the first place. That's why we think it's very important that the purpose of this motion be clear and that the timing of its impact also be very clear.
We favour the amendment that this motion be passed but that it come into effect at the beginning of the next parliament, when we will automatically elect a new Speaker. That will be an opportunity to bring it forward and deal with it at the proper time and place. That way there is no uncertainty about its meaning, purpose or effectiveness.
We're also concerned that this legislation is, as the government has indicated, part of a package of reforms. They haven't really said that, but they've hinted that it's part of a package of reforms, and again we're going by conjecture. In our own recommendations, we have put forward to all of the House Leaders that there should be a package of reforms, including this one. We have not had a reply from the House Leaders as to their response to that request. We would like to see this dealt with as part of that package. If it has been separated from that package, even while the government is saying that there are other reforms to be brought forward, why has it been separated from that package? What is the reason and the strategy? We don't want to suggest that it's something hidden and under the table. We are very well aware that the government has a strategy for everything it does. Or I should say that I hope they have a strategy for everything they do -- in that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, because sometimes we're not so sure.
Presuming they do have a strategy for everything they do, why is it that they've taken one item of a possible ten-item package and brought it forth without introduction, rationale or explanation? The Premier simply got up and presented it without any explanation of the total package of which it was a part. Then the hon. Minister of Housing, who seconded the motion and spoke on it, actually didn't speak on it at all. She talked about the historical place of women in the legislative process. This is valid and meaningful in its own right, but it did not give us any understanding of why this message was being brought forth, or why this act was being presented at this time.
When the government brings forth such a very significant motion, but does not place it in context, give the strategy for it or give us an understanding of why they have to do it at this particular time, in the midst of the throne speech debate, then it naturally raises questions and uncertainties. We need to go back and ask why. So we've tried to ask the government: "Why?" But they really haven't responded to that. They've reacted to what they thought was an attack upon them as persons, which it was not. It was an attack on the manner of the presentation and strategy that they have chosen to put this before the Legislature and through the Legislature to the people of the province.
This government used to be in opposition and generally did a good job of opposing. Certainly, if the government before them had brought this in, they would not have let it go through before they had examined every jot, every tittle, every period and every comma in that particular legislation. We could do that phrase by phrase, but that's not what we're trying to do. We've only raised a couple of questions about one passage within it. We're more concerned about the reasons and the strategy of it.
To clarify this, and to do as the government has said they were going to do -- that they were going to be frank and that they had no ulterior motives -- we'll accept their comment at face value: there are no ulterior motives and no intention to act on this in the immediate future. It's very simple to solve this by adopting this amendment, which simply says that we agree with the package, but it should not apply now, because we already have a Speaker in place; it should apply at the beginning of the next parliament. We all recognize that that is the time for the Speaker to be elected. Therefore I heartily endorse this amendment and ask the government why, rationally and reasonably, this amendment should not be accepted at this time in our dialogue. There is nothing to lose.
As one of the previous speakers said, if by chance something were to happen to the present Speaker, if she were to have a car accident and couldn't be here for a period of time, there are processes to deal with it. If she's only away temporarily, the Deputy Speaker takes over, because the Speaker is still here and available to serve us. The constitution provides for those emergencies. Those emergencies have been looked after ever since the beginning of this Legislature. Why is it suddenly so urgent that we must act within a 24-hour period in case some emergency comes upon us? We've survived for all of these 100 or more years. There is no emergency, but there is a need to be honest and clear with what we're about.
[4:45]
I respectfully submit that all members on all sides of this House should accept this amendment -- agree to the package, but have it come into effect at the beginning of the next parliament, which is the proper time and place. I hope we are able to do this quickly and easily so that we can get on with the other important work of this Legislature.
L. Stephens: I rise to support the amendment, which states: "This standing order shall take effect upon the commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament." I listened very carefully to the member for Vancouver-Kensington when he spoke earlier about the need for government reform. It's well known that the opposition supports government reform and has held free votes in this House. We have also supported the reforms that I spoke about this morning. There are some on the order paper, and we would encourage the government to bring those forth.
The issue here is process. That is the difficulty I have with the government's motion. If the government had brought forward a package of government reform that included the election of the Speaker, I don't think the members opposite would have been so suspicious of this government's motives. There has been no suggestion of any kind from our present Speaker that she intends to resign or that she is incapacitated in any way, so it's very suspicious when one reform is singled out and brought forward at this time.
As the member for Delta South says, we all support in principle a secret ballot vote for the election of the Speaker of this assembly. To allay the fears of the opposition that the
[ Page 9505 ]
government's motives are not honourable and that there is a secret agenda, I would urge the government and all members of this House to accept the amendments of the official opposition.
R. Chisholm: I have to rise again to speak to this, but I rise in support of the amendment. It's unfortunate that I have to rise in the first place, because we shouldn't be here talking about this situation. We are supposed to be a civilized nation in a civilized world. In a civilized world we abide by rules and laws. Otherwise we have anarchy. In this civilized world we have books to guide us. We have Beauchesne, Erskine May, MacMinn and our own local Standing Orders. It tells exactly what we're supposed to do in given situations. It tells us how we're supposed to operate. It tells us when we are supposed to be here and what our job is. It keeps us guided so that we do not go off the track, and somehow or other we've gone off the track on this one.
If we take a look at what the member for Vancouver-Kensington said about the Liberals reconsidering, my response to him is the government should have reconsidered before they put this motion in. Because they put this motion in, we have wasted two days of the people's time -- not our time, the time of the people of British Columbia. We're not doing the business of the province. We're standing here regurgitating the rules and regulations and throwing them back and forth, and getting a little bit insulting at times. What are we accomplishing? In a civilized society we have rules, and maybe it's time to abide by those rules.
If you take a look at Beauchesne, section 179 states: "The Speaker continues in office during the whole parliament, unless removed from office by death, resignation or resolution of the House." I don't think that has happened yet, hon. Speaker. I haven't seen your resignation yet. Section 147 states: "The election of the Speaker is subject to standing orders 2-6. At the opening of the first session of parliament, or when there is otherwise a vacancy in the office of the Speaker, or when the Speaker has made known an intention to resign...." That is the only time -- at the first session of parliament. That happened two years ago, not this year. We're in mid-parliament, so why are we discussing this? You haven't resigned, and thank goodness you haven't died -- hopefully, that's not in the near future.
Erskine May has some very interesting rules, too, but they get into a little more depth. Page 181 says: "Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker, but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized." This motion will ensure that the impartiality of the Speaker will not happen. This is detrimental to the impartiality of the Speaker. As a parliament, we have to be very careful that we do not undermine the underpinnings of our democracy, because that is the road that we are treading right now.
Erskine May further says: "To ensure the independence of Mr. Speaker, his salary is a charge upon the consolidated fund and so not subject to annual approval by parliament." They do this just to ensure that he cannot be bought off or whatever. Every time you look at the rules in this book it talks about impartiality and independence. It says that the person is there for the duration of the parliament. Well, this parliament runs for either four or five years, depending on the governing body.
Page 228 basically reflects Beauchesne again. It says: "Election of Speaker in course of session. The Speaker, thus elected and approved, continues in that office during the whole parliament, unless in the meantime he resigns or is removed by death." Again, I'm not going to reiterate my words. None of those things have happened. It goes on to say: "If we do have a retiring Speaker...." Then it says that in the event that there is an unavoidable absence, we will go through our original election: "...the election is conducted in the same manner as at the beginning of the session, with the member of longest service in the Chair."
The rules are very clear. With this motion, we are breaking the rules. If we want to amend this motion, we have to amend it at the beginning or end of the parliament. We've put in an amendment to the motion that says: "This standing order shall take effect upon the commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament." That's 18 months or two years away, unless this government takes us further.
Hon. Speaker, I hate to bore everybody with the rules, but that's what guides us in what we are doing here. That's what guides us in our jobs and keeps us honest. That's what has taken almost 700 years to evolve in these books, so that we have a general idea. With this move, we're going to regress 300 years.
My fear is that if we make this move right now in this manner, what is the next situation that this government or the Premier, or somebody, is not happy with? What is the next situation in which we're going to bend the rules? I've been on this earth for a little bit of time, and I've seen where rules get bent. I've seen how the rules disappear. We start getting a little more lax and a little more anarchistic. I think we have to tread very carefully.
There is another question that begs to be asked. If we truly want reform, there are members in this parliament who have brought in packages over the last few years to have reforms, but this government has not wanted to debate the reforms. They have selectively picked out one reform that they want to operate on. Why is this?
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: If there's more coming, hon. member, table them now. They're on the books. Let's talk about them. After all, we have tabled a few. We've tabled free votes; I don't see it on the table. I don't hear us talking about it. Question period being extended for 30 minutes; I don't see that on the table. Days reserved for constituency issues; I do not see that on the table. So if they're saying that there's going to be more, where are they? If we're going to discuss this one, let's talk about the whole reform package. Let's do it as a section of this parliament, and let's have it open for the public to see the reforms happening to our parliament. Why are we doing it in this manner?
This manner just begs people to ask questions and wonder what is happening with the governing body in this province. Where's the trust? If anybody is watching this, they have to ask where our credibility is. They have to abide by the rules, so why don't we? Where's the leadership? After all, that's exactly what we're here for; we're the leaders of this province. What are we doing? We are bending the rules for our own wants.
I beg the government to think about what they're doing. We have a Youth Parliament here, and we stand here and preach to them about the positions in this House, and we talk to them about what the Speaker does. Yet those same 95 children who were here earlier are watching us right now while we try to remove the Speaker midway through the term. The people who spoke to that last Youth Parliament are now caught up in all their lies. Some of them were quite
[ Page 9506 ]
unintentional because they were being honourable and they were quoting from the books on how we operate.
It's deplorable that we think of ourselves as leaders, yet we sink to this depth. The only thing that's being asked by this opposition is to take this amendment and discuss it at the beginning of the thirty-sixth parliament, where it appropriately belongs. Every book we have guiding our actions states that that is when it should be done. What is wrong with that? Why this motion midway through the term? As I said, my fear is: where do we go from here?
There's another point I want to raise about the secret ballot. Why is the secret ballot valid when you talk about the Speaker, but not when you talk about unions? These things are basic. We are changing the rules. We are bending the rules. Democracy is being hurt by this. We have to watch exactly what we're doing.
The last question this whole thing raises is: why now? It has been asked half a dozen times here, but nobody has adequately answered it. Hon. Speaker, you cannot speak for yourself. So it is up to the loyal opposition to speak for you. Being in the loyal opposition, my responsibility is to defend the position of the Speaker until somebody adequately answers this question. Give me some substantiation and justification for this and I will debate it with anyone. But if nobody can tell me why they're doing this, then I can only do one thing and that is to try to defend the Speaker.
[5:00]
Again I emphasize that we only ask for one thing, and that is to debate this at the beginning of the thirty-sixth parliament. If we're going to talk about reform now, then let's talk about the whole package. Let's table it all right now and let's talk about it. In the meantime, all we've managed to do in two days is to undermine the credibility of this parliament. We've done no business for the people of B.C., and I foresee that in the near future we're not going to do much more. Our job right now is not talking about who is going to be Speaker. Our job right now is to talk about the real issues like the economy and jobs. We should talk about the Speech from the Throne and the budget. We should debate these issues. That is our job now. Our job isn't to talk about this until the thirty-sixth parliament begins.
I want to leave you with a quote from Nehru, the former Prime Minister of India. He said: "The Speaker represents the House, in its dignity and freedom, and because the House represents the nation the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation's freedom and liberty." Can we say that about British Columbia? Unfortunately we cannot.
J. Dalton: As we've stated many times in this debate from the opposition side, we're obviously uncomfortable with the motion, and I presume that the Speaker is uncomfortable with this motion.
I must say, hon. Speaker, that I give you full credit for sitting very patiently through this debate. We can come and go as we please, and I cast around and see many people have come and gone. But you, as I say, have been very patient and have sat through this entire exercise.
In dealing with the amendment that's before the House on this motion of the Premier's, if nothing else, I at least invite all members to postpone the implementation of this so-called reform motion. I say so-called reform because we have to wonder why, in the first week of the third session of this parliament, the Premier suddenly announces that only one reform of the standing orders is needed. That does amaze me. The opposition has in mind many reforms that are needed to the standing orders, this being but one of a package.
So certainly the motives behind the motion itself must be questioned, and as I say, at least we should seriously consider the postponement of the implementation of this motion until the next parliament meets. I would encourage the government that if they could make that as soon as possible, then we could certainly implement this motion as soon as possible.
What we should have been doing this week -- we did start on it, but it's been sidetracked -- is the response to the Speech from the Throne. Next Tuesday the budget will be brought down. Who knows? We may still be in the throes of debating this motion and possibly other amendments that may be brought forward. Quite frankly, it disturbs me and members of the opposition that the business of this province is being delayed because of this unwarranted and certainly uncalled-for motion.
Dealing with the amendment itself, if we could at least postpone implementation I think we would all be happier. I believe that we could then support the main motion, because it does constitute one of many things, as the opposition has announced through its motion on the order paper, in the way of reform to the standing orders.
What do we see in front of us? We see a motion that detracts from the business of this House, that detracts from what the people of this province have elected us to do. I don't think that any British Columbian who may be tuning in now had in mind, when he or she voted during the 1991 election, that this week we would be standing and arguing the merits, or lack of them, in the Premier's motion on so-called reform.
This motion is disguised as parliamentary reform. Certainly reform is needed, as I and other members have commented, but I would say that of all possible reforms to the standing orders, this one as it stands alone is most objectionable. That is because of, firstly, the timing of this motion. As I've already commented, it's very strange that it has to be brought in at the start of the third session of this parliament and that the motion is presented alone. It's a stand-alone motion to reform the standing orders. Perhaps the government has in mind to bring in other amendments to the standing orders over the life of this session or subsequent sessions. We don't know. But why is it that the Premier felt it necessary to bring in this motion at this time, and bring it in itself, of itself? Certainly I think it is fair to question the motives behind that.
So this isolated motion begs the question: why has it been done? There has been speculation, both within these chambers and in the corridors, as to what the motive behind it is. I don't wish to get into that, because of course that really would detract from the purpose of our debating the motion and the amendment that we've presented.
Our purpose is first to defeat the motion. Failing that, at least as a backup we can have the implementation of it delayed. Our concern, looking back over the history of parliamentary process and how our British parliamentary procedure developed, is that we are literally throwing a wrench into the works by allowing this sort of manoeuvre to take place at this time.
Why has the Premier introduced this motion now? Why not leave it until the end of this parliament? Or why not bring it in as a package of reform which could either be implemented now or, as our amendment suggests, delayed until the next parliament? Why even invite a change in the office of Speaker? I see no need for a change in the office of Speaker. As I will refer to in a few moments, our standing orders take care of the -- heaven forbid -- necessity to replace the Speaker. All this motion does is create rumours, innuendo and suspicion, and that is most unfortunate.
[ Page 9507 ]
If we pass this motion with the amendment of the opposition as presented, then we will all have accomplished a reform that members of this parliament want. And that is at least the recognition that the election of a Speaker for the life of the parliament -- not for half of it and then we'll change the rules -- by secret ballot by all members would be one that we certainly could live with and would applaud. But we can hardly applaud the possibility of removing a Speaker for no stated reason other than perhaps that the Premier, cabinet, caucus of the government or who knows has become unhappy for some reason. That is not satisfactory. We are urging all members to consider the amendment. If we delay implementation of the motion, I think we can reach a happy compromise. There is no happy compromise with the Premier's motion. The Premier's motion is only causing dissent. It will probably set the tone for this entire third session of parliament. I doubt that that's going to be the happiest session in the history of British Columbia anyway. Why make it worse by introducing this motion and the tone it sets?
A few moments ago I alluded to some of the current standing orders of the Legislature of British Columbia. I want to read into the record briefly the references to the Speaker. They start with standing order 9, but we're not concerned with that. Absence of the Speaker is the issue we're debating through this motion and the amendment. As we know, standing order 11 does not exist, and it's the purpose of the Premier's motion that we will introduce a standing order 11. Standing order 12 deals with the temporary absence of the Speaker. The Clerk of the House can inform the House accordingly, and then the Deputy Speaker, as we know, would step into the chair.
Perhaps standing order 13 is of most relevance to the debate before us now. It deals with the appointment of the Speaker pro tem; if the Speaker is absent from the House for five consecutive sitting days, then the House may elect one of its own kind to replace the Speaker. That could be done on a temporary basis until the Speaker duly returns to the chair. Or it could be done for the life of the parliament if, heaven forbid, it is necessary to replace the Speaker for the rest of that parliament's life. So the rules as we currently have them deal with what might happen during the life of a parliament.
The Premier is inviting us with his motion to abandon those rules, abandon 600 or 700 years of parliamentary process and tradition, and change things in midstream. Again, as I commented earlier, I think that only raises unfortunate innuendo and suspicion. We don't know what the game plan of the cabinet and the government is, but unfortunately I think there are things that could be read into this motion that are unpleasant at best. I don't think any member of this House wishes to invite unnecessary confrontation and disagreement; we'll have plenty of that during this session. But in the first week, if we get off to such a rocky start, then I predict that things are only going to go from bad to worse.
When you think back two years, hon. members, to when we duly elected our Speaker, nobody raised any suggestion then that perhaps we should do it differently, other than in one private member's bill. We've gone through two sessions of this parliament with no discussion whatsoever on reform of this particular standing order. Suddenly on the second day of the third session of this parliament, the Premier throws this motion on the floor. Well, we can't live with it. I think it's objectionable and it's unpleasant in its tone. Again, I urge all members to seriously consider the opposition amendment and to allow this motion as amended to go forward, so that at least then it's part of a reform package that will be implemented over time -- not in this parliament but in the next parliament.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to rise again to support my colleagues with regard to the amendment to the motion put forward earlier by the Premier. The amendment that we've put forward calls for the standing order to take effect at the commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament -- that is, the parliament after this one -- and therefore would not be putting any pressure upon the Speaker in this parliament.
We need to make sure that there is no pressure, no infringement of the freedom of the Speaker to do their duty and to make sure that the democracy of this parliament, as it has been throughout history, has been maintained. It takes a very independent position to be able to be fair and equitable to all members in this House. We have an adversarial parliament, a parliament that requires a government and an opposition. The opposition's role is to make sure the government is held accountable and responsive to the people of the province. In order to allow the free flow of debate and for all issues to brought forward in that way, Madam Speaker, your position is paramount. It's even more paramount when there's a large government side versus the opposition that there be fair treatment and an opportunity for the smaller opposition to be heard, and even for the independent members to have their voice in this process.
[5:15]
With the process that is being put forward without this amendment, the Speaker would really be under the threat at any time of being recalled by the government, with its overwhelming majority. This does not provide for good democratic government. The parliamentary process requires an opportunity for everyone to be heard and understood. If a person is out of line or has a point of order, decisions and recommendations made by the Speaker should not favour the government or opposition but should favour parliament as a whole. Fair and equitable treatment should be given to every decision.
We have to proceed with this supposed reform now in order to look after the interests of this government. Perhaps that's why it's coming forward at this point. We really have to question the motives of this government in bringing it forward at this time. The seriousness of the timing of this, having such a high priority over the debate on the throne speech and impacting on the budget address because of the delays caused by bringing it forward at this point, and the need for it to be properly debated are factors in this.
Some members say that this is an unnecessary debate. They really are out of touch with parliamentary form if they feel that this should just be passed quickly, without recognizing that there are some serious faults in the motion that has been brought forward by the Premier. The motion itself does not recognize the need for that delay, therefore the opposition has had to bring forward amendments in order to bring it into effect at an appropriate time, not in the middle of the session as it is at this time. We need to look at the language of this motion and the whole concept of bringing about reform in this House, not just at one item. There are many items, and this caucus has already brought forward a series of recommendations to the Legislature. Surely the government should be bringing forward a whole series of recommendations for reform, rather than trying to bring forward just one item that is perhaps convenient for the purpose of controlling the direction of parliament.
It is really deplorable when we see a government dealing with this in this manner. We really have concern about the awkward position this has placed the Speaker in. We have the greatest respect for the Speaker and the work that has been
[ Page 9508 ]
done on behalf of this Legislature for many years. We have great concern about this very embarrassing situation and the very awkward position that it puts the Speaker in. It must be very trying to have this type of stress -- recognizing, of course, that it is expected in the political process by some people. I don't think that people in our communities want this type of stress placed on their parliamentarians. It's not the type of government they want to see. They want open, honest and accountable government; they want a government that is going to be fair, understanding and sensitive. I really don't feel that this is what we're getting when this type of legislation is being brought forward.
This government looks like it has its own very questionable agenda that it is bringing forward with this motion. I think it's because they are so frustrated with their total inability over the last two and a half years to provide good government in British Columbia. They are working to play the technical aspects of this to divert the attention from the real problem: their failure to administer the province. That is one of the reasons we are into this in the middle of what would normally be the debate on the throne speech. Here we are, into an extensive debate on a motion that is not desired by the people of British Columbia. There is no request for it to come in at this point. If there were a groundswell movement saying that it should come in now, maybe it would be appropriate, but I haven't heard of anybody requesting that we have this type of legislation now. I have heard of a lot of other legislation that they would like to see come through, legislation that would get the government out of the people's pocketbooks and out of their lives, but certainly not anything to do with a Speaker's election. It's a good reform proposal, but at the appropriate time: when we next choose a Speaker. We don't have that requirement today. There is absolutely no reason for us to choose a Speaker at this time.
I'd like to encourage all members in this House to recognize the very important aspect of this amendment and to consider supporting it, because it is a realistic amendment. It allows all parties in this House to support the major motion that has been brought forward by the Premier. If this amendment is not in place, it is almost impossible for the people on this side of the House to consider the motion viable to endorse. We would like to be positive and endorse the motion, because it would set a tone and it would be a first step towards changing the parliamentary process.
We need to change the parliamentary process in British Columbia. The people are asking for those changes. We as the opposition are prepared to make the changes as the people desire, but there is no call from the people to have the Speaker, who has done an honourable job throughout the last two and a half years, to be removed. No process has been requested. I urge all of my colleagues in this House to stand when this amendment comes up for a vote and be counted in favour of it.
D. Mitchell: Just briefly, before you put the question on this amendment, I want to take the opportunity to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day.
An Hon. Member: She's Irish, you know.
D. Mitchell: We all have Irish in us.
Hon. Speaker, I'm anxious to return to the main motion because I actually have a couple of very brief amendments that deal with the actual motion, believe it or not. I really want to get to the motion and procedure that is being outlined by the government motion.
Just before I get to that, I'd like to say that as far as the amendment goes, I think I understand the intent of the official opposition in moving the amendment. But I'm not really sure that by preventing this procedure from going forward until the start of the next parliament we really serve a meaningful purpose -- because of course none of us in this House could ever seek to tie the hands of the occupant of the chair to prevent her from deciding her own fate, whether she wishes to remain as Speaker voluntarily or otherwise. I think it's very clear from the course of debate over the last couple of days that the Speaker understands that she has strong support among all members of the House. But on the basis of the way the amendment was put forward, I'm not sure that I can really support it. Although I understand the intent, and I think I agree with it, the technique is a little clumsy. It doesn't quite meet the test of giving the Chair latitude to decide her own fate, which is important.
Hon. Speaker, I have one other concern. I hope we don't believe that we are debating this for the first time in this House, because this tradition of defending the independence of the Legislature and the Speaker's office is something that goes back to the very start of this Legislature, and there have been many previous debates.
I would like to make one brief reference to a debate that took place in 1976 in this House, during a time when there was a controversy over the election of a Speaker. The Speaker designate, a member from Peace River whose name was Ed Smith, was going to be taking the chair, but he was challenged. The opposition of that date put forward another candidate, a very well-respected former member of this House by the name of Alec Macdonald. There was a debate at that time. It was an awkward debate, because the Speaker was not yet in the chair. The Clerk had to preside over the debate. Interestingly enough, even though the Clerk was presiding at the time, there was a debate. It created some awkward moments at the start of the thirty-first parliament in 1976, but some good comments were made.
As I enter this debate, I would like to very briefly note -- because I would like to not take up too much time and move to the main motion -- one comment made by a former member for Prince Rupert, Mr. Graham Lea. Many members will remember him fondly. He stated that the Speaker "must have courage and...must not take orders from anyone except the hon. members of this House." He said: "...the Speaker of this assembly is under obligation not to the executive council, but under obligation to all hon. members of this House." I think it's a good point that summarizes the sentiments that have been expressed during the debate on this amendment and on the main motion.
During that debate, Mr. Wallace said:
"While I regret the inconvenience" -- and I think we all regret the inconvenience -- "and I see no need whatever to apologize, I would simply conclude by saying that.... Big governments must not be encouraged to encroach on larger freedoms by being allowed to nibble away at the smaller ones. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and the members on this side of the House today are exercising that vigilance."
I suppose that is what's happening in this debate. It has been a long debate. I know that I would prefer to be debating the Speech from the Throne. My constituents want to know what I think about the Speech from the Throne, and that's what I would prefer to be doing here. But vigilance is being exercised here with the moving of this amendment and with the debate that has been taking place on this motion.
I have one further quote from 1976, during another historic event dealing with the Speaker in this House. I quoted Mr. Gordon Gibson yesterday in a different context, but he was also involved in that debate. At that time he was
[ Page 9509 ]
addressing the Clerk and the hon. members, and he said: "That sad circumstance...will haunt the life of this parliament as a direct result of the actions of this government." I certainly hope that the events that may follow this government motion passing -- and I expect it will -- will not haunt the remainder of the life of this parliament.
[5:30]
I just want to remind all of us that we are not the first to debate this issue. It has been debated very eloquently by some previous parliamentarians. While I understand what the members are doing with their amendment, I don't think I can support it. I am anxious to return to the main motion and move some other amendments of my own.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment, I will read the amendment: "that this motion be amended by the insertion of the following: '(14) This standing order shall take effect upon the commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament'."
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 13 |
||
|
Chisholm |
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Gingell |
Stephens |
Hanson |
|
Serwa |
H. De Jong |
Symons |
|
Jones |
Warnke |
Anderson |
| Jarvis | ||
|
NAYS -- 49 |
||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
|
Hammell |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Smallwood |
Cull |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
MacPhail |
Ramsey |
|
Barnes |
Pullinger |
Janssen |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Beattie |
|
Farnworth |
Conroy |
Doyle |
|
Lord |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Lovick |
Jackson |
Kasper |
|
Krog |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
|
Boone |
Weisgerber |
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
Tyabji |
Wilson |
| Mitchell | ||
On the main motion.
D. Mitchell: I rise briefly to speak to the main motion and to move a couple of brief amendments, which the table has advised me that I can move together. These are very brief amendments. They actually deal with the motion and the procedure by which we elect a Speaker. I'm seeking to clarify a couple of points in the motion. This will only take a moment, I can assure you, because I am anxious to get on with other business as well.
In the motion, section 11(a) does not allow candidates for the office of the Speaker to address her or his fellow members. I agree that there should not be unseemly campaigning for the office of Speaker -- no posters, no buttons, no brochures. We should try to keep the costs down....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
D. Mitchell: I refer to the incident in 1976 when there was an election in this House for Speaker. When the Speaker designate -- the member for Peace River, Ed Smith -- was about to take the chair, the NDP opposition of that day, combined with some other independent members in the House, nominated Alec Macdonald, a member for Vancouver East. Because Mr. Macdonald had an opportunity to address the House, and the Clerk who was presiding over the election permitted the member for Vancouver East to address the House, the members collectively urged the member for Peace River to address the House also, because they felt he should have an equal opportunity to do so. It strikes me that that procedure was a fair one at the time, because it gave both candidates for the office of Speaker a brief opportunity to address their fellow members and to speak to their vision of the office of Speaker and their qualifications for that office.
One of the amendments I wish to move would provide for a similar opportunity in the procedure in the Premier's motion by adding section 11(a)(4): "Candidates for office of the Speaker shall be permitted the opportunity to make a brief address to members regarding their qualifications for the position."
Hon. Speaker, should I move both of my amendments simultaneously?
The Speaker: Yes, that will be fine, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: The second amendment deals with section 11(b) of the motion on notice. It deals with the ballots and counting the ballots. I notice there is no provision in the motion for scrutinizing the counting of the ballots. We know that scrutineers are allowed in any modern democratic election in the western world. In any election that I can think of in any western democracy, scrutineers are permitted. In order to make the process legitimate in the eyes of all members of the House, I propose a second amendment that would amend section 11(b)(5) by adding the following words: "The ballots shall neither be counted nor destroyed without the agreement of scrutineers representing the candidates for office of the Speaker." It's a small amendment, but I think it puts it in line with modern election law outside this House, and it might also apply to elections within the House.
Hon. Speaker, with these two amendments, I would like to see if the government has a response and would be willing to accept them as friendly amendments to the motion made by the hon. Premier.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I think all members understand why the hon. member needed to move both his amendments at the same time. But for ease of dealing with them in the House, we will have to deal with them separately. So we will now be on the first amendment that was moved relating to candidates being permitted an opportunity to make a brief address.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, for the same reasons that it was important to move them together, I think it might be easier for the House to speak to them together. With leave of the House, I suppose we could do that, and I request that leave.
The Speaker: In response to that point of order, while it may be a little cleaner to do it separately, if it is the will of the House to deal with both amendments together and to have
[ Page 9510 ]
members able to address both amendments when they get up to speak, then we can proceed that way. I will ask if it is the will of the House to proceed with both these amendments jointly. It is agreed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In answer to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi's question: no, thank you.
On the amendments.
A. Warnke: I just have a comment, hon. Speaker. I think the amendments produced by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi illustrate very clearly.... It was a statement that sort of conforms to the statement that I made earlier today. But there are enough flaws within the motion that has been presented before the House. Where does it end now? We're supposedly trying to clean up this and that. I pointed to two provisions in my speech earlier where there are certain problems. It seems to me that the amendments introduced by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi only reinforce the point that perhaps the motion should be withdrawn altogether.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thinking from a non-partisan point of view for once, I wanted to.... In thinking of the debate that's taking place in this House -- I know when they elected their Speaker in Ottawa this time there was comment about members campaigning -- I think it's worth considering whether the member's motion to allow a brief statement might act as a safety valve to alleviate some of the campaign that might take place in the corridors and offices around. It might provide an opportunity for members to make those statements in a forum that's a little more controlled.
[5:45]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know it's difficult for the Minister of Social Services to understand thinking on your own and not acting by rote and by political party. I'm just trying to put out an item, and an opportunity for....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the government's motive in all of this is for reform, it's worth looking at these suggestions and certainly worth debating them. I don't think anybody should be offended by people putting forward positive reforms. I think it's worth this House considering.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the amendments, we will vote on the amendment first moved, and that is that section 11(a)(3) be amended by adding after "no debate" the following words: "except as required of the candidates under section 11(a)(4)"; and by adding the following section: "Section 11(a)(4). Candidates for office of the Speaker shall be permitted the opportunity to make a brief address to members regarding their qualifications for the position."
Amendment negatived.
The Speaker: On the second amendment, that section 11(b)(5) be amended by adding the following words: "The ballots shall neither be counted nor destroyed without the agreement of scrutineers representing the candidates for office of the Speaker. "
Amendment negatived.
The Speaker: We are now back on the main motion.
D. Jarvis: Here I am again, Madam Speaker. In view of the time, hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]