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)
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 13, Number 8
[ Page 9529 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I have a very important introduction this afternoon. I'm very pleased to advise hon. members that today Robert Vaive joins our team of table officers. Mr. Vaive brings to our House an extensive career in the parliamentary world. After graduating from Carleton with an honours degree in political science, he worked with the House of Commons from 1976 to 1990, first as Committee Clerk and later as Deputy Principal Clerk. From 1990 to the present time, Mr. Vaive has been the Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Mr. Vaive was one of several highly qualified candidates who applied for the position as a senior table officer in British Columbia. I'm sure all hon. members will want to join me in welcoming him to the table of our Legislative Assembly.
C. Serwa: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce two very special, very splendid, fine young people from my constituency of Okanagan West: my niece and nephew, Grant and Melissa Munroe. Would the House please make them welcome.
K. Jones: It's a great pleasure for me to introduce to the House today my brother Bob Jones from Port Alberni and his fiancee, Sandra Brandenburg, from Venice, California. They are here to support the forest industry of British Columbia and will be part of this afternoon's rally. Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Doug and Georgina Griffiths of Chilliwack and my daughter Carolyn, who are in the gallery today. Would you make them most welcome, please.
G. Brewin: I'd like the House to make welcome a little later this afternoon a group from the 8th Fort Victoria Cubs, a group of 12 children and their leader, Ms. Barchyn. They will be in the precinct around 4 o'clock, so if you run into some Cubs, that's who they are. Please make them welcome.
ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT CONTRACT
D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Today a collective agreement is being signed between Highways Constructors Ltd. and the B.C. Highway Construction Council. This backroom deal, brokered by the government, is nothing more than a sellout using the taxpayers' money. Will the Minister of Transportation and Highways confirm, despite this government's assurances otherwise, that it is the government's secret intention to expand this contract to projects other than the Island Highway?
Hon. J. Pement: The Island Highway is a topic that I'd really like to discuss, because it has been 30 years in the making...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Pement: ...and this government has listened to the petitions of the communities to ensure that we're going to meet the travelling needs of the public. We're going to have a project agreement that's going to ensure that this highway is built, and we are going to make this highway get built on time.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
D. Symons: I heard in that answer, then, no denial that it's the government's secret intention to expand this contract to other projects. It looks like unionization of the province is about to take place, because the minister certainly wouldn't deny that that was the case.
I have in my hands a copy of the agreement which I intend to make public. If it is not the intention of the government to expand this agreement beyond the Island Highway, then I wonder if the minister might explain to me the meaning or significance of article 17, which refers specifically to projects not located on Vancouver Island.
Hon. J. Pement: Hon. Speaker, I just want to remind the opposition members, and particularly the critic, that this project agreement is looking at local hiring. I think that's the really important thing, when you think of what's happening today out on the lawn: local jobs are important. That's what this project agreement is about.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
D. Symons: Well, I'll just try one more time, because I asked basically the same question twice and both times I seem to have got a direct evasion with the answer. Will this unionized project contract be applied to contracts for projects throughout the province, besides the Island Highway?
Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to know why the opposition opposes local hiring and why they oppose us having an agreement regarding our highway. I believe that we're going to meet the schedule for the highway construction, and that's what the program is about.
CORE REPORT ON VANCOUVER ISLAND
W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm that her ministry has done a study identifying lost revenues to the Crown and lost jobs as a result of the CORE Vancouver Island report?
Hon. E. Cull: There is a study underway as to the effect of the CORE report. The Premier has said very clearly that no action will be taken on the CORE Vancouver Island report until we have thoroughly investigated all of the social and economic impacts.
W. Hurd: There are 20,000 people on the lawns of the Legislature today who have been waiting for two and a half years for that study to be tabled. Can the minister tell us why it has taken two and a half years for the Ministry of Finance to identify the loss in revenues to the Crown as a result of cut reductions on Vancouver Island?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm very surprised to hear this question from this member of the opposition. When we made the balanced decision on Clayoquot Sound last year, the opposition party said: "Don't make that decision; turn it over
[ Page 9530 ]
to CORE." Now they don't want us to act on the CORE decision.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Will the minister agree to table in the House, for the people outside to review, any existing studies about the impacts on the economy of the province due to the kinds of job reductions we're seeing in the CORE report?
Hon. E. Cull: As I said in answer to the first question, we're not making any decisions until we've done a thorough review of both the social and economic impacts.
PRIVATIZATION OF GOVERNMENT AIR SERVICES
K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. I've received information that his ministry intends to lay off five pilots and to phase out and privatize government air services. Will the minister confirm that after two and a half years his government has finally come to the conclusion that this service would be best provided by the private sector?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Obviously I cannot talk about future government policy, but I can assure you that this government is always concerned about the taxpayer. This government is always reviewing its programs to ensure the taxpayer is protected.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
K. Jones: Can the minister confirm that internal studies have shown for some time that a private sector contract arrangement is more cost-effective, and will he release these studies today?
[2:15]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Since we took office we have made dramatic changes in Government Air, with great savings to the taxpayer. Ambulance travel is up and special flights are down. I have said quite clearly that in my ministry we are reviewing a number of operations, of which Government Air is one of them. Hon. member, there may indeed be changes in the future.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
K. Jones: You give us the indication that you've actually got some research going on -- you've got studies. Will you table them today?
VLC LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROPOSAL
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week I wrote the Attorney General, requesting he investigate the operation of the Vancouver city council with VLC with respect to social housing. Is the minister herself undertaking any investigation with respect to the loss of revenues that were invested from the Vancouver city council and VLC's promise to build low-income housing, which has been a failure in terms of their proposition?
Hon. D. Marzari: The issue bears little relationship to the mandate of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The answer is no.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the Vancouver Charter, I believe the guarantee of publicly owned lands to a private corporation and the promise for low-income housing certainly should fall within the mandate of this minister if it does not -- and I believe it does. This company undertook to build many low-income rentals. It has failed to do so, and yet was given large amounts of public funds. Can the minister tell us if she is prepared now, given this information, to undertake an investigation to find out what took place with respect to VLC and the former city council of Vancouver?
Hon. D. Marzari: I would suggest that the inspector of municipalities might be the logical place to lodge this particular complaint. I will inquire about the mandate of the ministry in this particular case, but these were city-owned lands and the Vancouver Charter is basically what the city of Vancouver is accountable to.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Could the minister then assure this House that she will instruct the inspector of municipalities to undertake such an investigation, so that the public may be aware of what has taken place with respect to this contract between a private company and a publicly constituted council?
Hon. D. Marzari: The answer to that is no, this minister will not assure the House of that. But this minister will take a serious look at the ministry's mandate and its relationship, legally, to supervise what the city of Vancouver does with its own lands.
SAFETY ON UPPER LEVELS HIGHWAY
J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On October 24, 1992, I wrote to the previous minister expressing concerns about the state of the Upper Levels Highway west of the Capilano Bridge. On December 18, 1992, the then minister responded. I quote from his letter: "...the travelling surface on the Upper Levels Highway meets the maintenance and safety standards throughout, including pavement drainage and wheel rutting." Four days after my October 24 letter, Mr. Jamie Coltart was rendered quadriplegic in a single-vehicle accident that was apparently caused by hydroplaning. Can the present minister explain this blatant lack of concern for the safety of motorists?
Hon. J. Pement: The member from North Vancouver has also expressed concern about the Westview interchange. We certainly are taking this into consideration, and it is a priority within our ministry.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Dalton: Putting aside the Westview issue, which is separate from my concerns, Mr. Coltart was billed $4,115 for the damage that his automobile caused to the concrete barrier in this accident. Is that an appropriate response to such a human tragedy?
Hon. J. Pement: It is a difficult situation for all of us to deal with. I will have my ministry review this situation.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
[ Page 9531 ]
J. Dalton: The ministry received numerous complaints throughout 1992, some of which I have in my file, yet nothing was done until nine months after Mr. Coltart's unfortunate accident. Why does it take a tragedy of this magnitude to spur the government to qome action?
GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN VLC PROPERTIES LTD.
C. Serwa: Mine is a very simple, straighforward question to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Could the minister share with the House the name of the individual who first approached the government to invest in VLC Properties Ltd?
Hon. G. Clark: I believe the Premier tabled a document in this House that gave a chronology of events. That information would be more reliable than my memory at this point.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
C. Serwa: The question was about who contacted the minister and was not in reference to the documents. Perhaps the minister will take a second chance at that question at this time.
Hon. G. Clark: I thought you said the government. I'm not absolutely certain of the chronology, but I did meet with Mr. Podmore from time to time -- partly as an MLA and partly as a government member -- on VLC-related questions concerning developments in Vancouver. At one point early on I did meet with Mr. Poole and Mr. Georgetti to discuss investments by the government, as I did when I was the Minister of Finance. We simply pass any requests for investments by the government to the appropriate Finance ministry officials for their due diligence and consideration.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
C. Serwa: The final supplementary is to the Minister of Social Services. Could the minister disclose what conversations she had with Mr. Ken Georgetti of the VLC board concerning the VLC prior to its receiving $15 million in provincial tax dollars through the B.C. Endowment Fund?
The Speaker: Could the hon. member clarify for the Chair how that falls within the minister's responsibility?
C. Serwa: It may or may not, but the reality is that the conversation was held, and the question was directed to the minister.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, I cannot allow a question that does not fall within the ministerial responsibility of the minister.
IMPLEMENTATION OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS REVIEW
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Last Friday we released a document, which indicated some browbeating and heavy arm-twisting by this minister on behalf of his government, in order to get the roadbuilders of this province to knuckle under and sign a contract. One of the conditions was that this minister would give a commitment to those people to delay implementation of the Employment Standards Act. Will the minister table in this House today the actual documentation of the verbal agreement that was promised to those people?
Hon. D. Miller: I want to state categorically that there has never been any agreement to delay implementation of the report that was delivered to government -- Professor Mark Thompson's employment standards review. That report, by the way, is the first comprehensive look in 70 years at those very important statutes that govern and protect, I would say, those on the bottom end of the ladder in this province. I made a commitment to members of the business community -- and in fact, to all members of the public -- that they would have 60 days to respond to that report. We want to proceed after those discussions, as we have in the past on other labour-related issues, and we do not prejudge any of the recommendations contained in the report.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I note that my hon. critic....
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. The bell signals the end of question period.
G. Wilson: I rise today under standing order 35 and ask leave to move an adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, that being the current status of the Vancouver Island land use plan.
The Speaker: Proceed with your statement, hon. member.
G. Wilson: I believe it is the purpose of this House to debate such issues of urgent public importance. The people are mobilized on this issue, and indeed they have come here today from all over the province to ask what the status of the Vancouver Island plan is with respect to their employment and to the future of their families. This is an issue of public importance, which is demonstrated by the thousands that are congregated on the lawn of the Legislature today. I believe that it is incumbent upon each of us here today to state our position with respect to its status and its intention, so that the lives of the people out there and of those who are not able to be with us today can be clarified by both the government's and the opposition's positions.
The Speaker: Would the member please forward his statement to the Chair.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, of course, I'm inclined to support the motion, if for no other reason than to find out what the Liberal Party position on CORE is. However, I'm not sure that it falls within the very strict guidelines of standing order 35 with respect to emergency debates. It is clearly an urgent and pressing matter, and it's clearly one that the government is dealing with daily. Frankly, I assume that it will consume a lot of time over the next few months of debate in this chamber. There are a variety of forums for raising that debate. I don't think it qualifies for an emergency debate under standing order 35, but I certainly sympathize with the member's comments with respect to its urgent and pressing nature.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise and support the motion for an emergency debate on the land use plan for Vancouver Island. There are some 20,000 to 25,000 people on the Legislature lawn who are really not here to debate the
[ Page 9532 ]
Liberal position on CORE; they're interested in the government's position. I find it significant that, as we speak, the Premier is out speaking to the group and is unable to be in the House for that reason. I look forward to the opportunity to debate this important issue.
The Speaker: Thank you for submissions on this matter, hon. members. I have heard from both sides of the House at this time. I will, as always, consider the matter and report back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.
J. Dalton: I request permission to table correspondence on the condition of the Upper Levels Highway.
Leave granted.
D. Symons: I request permission to table the collective agreement between Highway Constructors Ltd. and the B.C. Highway and Related Construction Council.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 1 on the order paper standing in the name of the Premier.
[2:30]
ELECTION OF SPEAKER BY SECRET BALLOT
D. Jarvis: Once again I stand up to speak on this very objectionable motion, Madam Speaker. We are debating a subject that is one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary system, a system that has lasted approximately 600 years. It may appear that what I and others are about to say is a repeat of the....
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: It's quite all right, Madam Speaker; they don't listen to us anyway.
As I was saying, if what I and others are about to say is somewhat repetitious, it is because this is still a democracy that we're allowed to get up time after time and repeat anything we want to.
Hon. G. Clark: And you do.
D. Jarvis: If it is objectionable to the Government House Leader, I would invite him to invoke closure now. Do I have no response from the Government House Leader that he would like to do so? Being that he's not prepared to invoke closure, I will continue.
As we're all aware, this motion changes the procedures. These changes to the procedures are quite offensive to the Liberal opposition and to the parliamentary system that presently exists. What is probably most offensive is how and when these changes to the rules are coming about. When they brought it before the House was ill timed. What possible rationale could the Premier and the government have for bringing it in in the middle of the thirty-fifth parliament?
This cannot be considered reform of parliament as far as we're concerned, because if so we would be seeing the backbenchers of the government side of the House all speaking to this motion. We see none; we wonder why. Are they that deep-down concerned that they're not speaking? Or is it possibly that they've been muzzled and do not want to get up and talk about it?
I should mention that a couple of members, the members for Vancouver-Kensington and Cariboo North, got up and spoke on it. It really surprises me considerably that they would get up and talk on it, especially since these are probably two of the most honourable gentlemen in the House on the government side, who always, if it's a civil rights aspect, get up and speak on it. But no, they got up and spoke on reform rather than the right and wrong of it; they have not spoken up in support of the freedom of choice. It makes me wonder where they were when Sam Wagar's nomination was taken away on the basis of religious belief. Was it because his religion wasn't acceptable? Or was it because reform was coming in the NDP? We wonder. It's a sad state of hypocrites that we seem to find in this room. The Premier put this House and his government into this position. We don't know why he has done it or for what reason; I can't figure it out. We know that between now and the end of this thirty-fifth parliament is the time it should have been done. I'm afraid that presenting this motion at this time is going to enhance the Premier's power to remove the Speaker and elect a replacement of his choosing, solely by the weight of numbers on his side of the House. It appears to us on this side of the House that this procedure is simply that the Premier does not like the decisions that have been made by the Speaker, so he has laid down his motion.
And what are we to think of it? He presents it under the guise of reform. As I said before, it's the wrong time and place. The Premier is as far from being acceptable at this time by having an impartial adjudicator presented through his motion.... He's as far away as we can possibly think, at this time. If the dignity and respect of this office are to be maintained, the whole motion should be put forward to the end of this parliament or the start of the next parliament. We in the Liberal Party are prepared to accept a motion of electing a Speaker from the members of the House, but not on the premise that he has presented to us today. It would be proper for him right now to withdraw this motion and present it at the end of -- not this session -- probably the next session, because that's before we'll go into the next election for the thirty-sixth parliament.
We are suspicious, and we have the right to be so. There is nothing in this motion to say we should not be suspicious of the motive of this motion. This is not reform, but a betrayal of the office. I'm worried that the behaviour of this government is questionable, beyond the point of relevant reform in this instance. The question of impartiality will remain in question on this side of the House until the end of this thirty-fifth parliament if we proceed with this motion. I would like to register that I will be voting against the motion.
R. Chisholm: I rise today to bring to the government's attention some of the rules that we live and abide by in this House, so that possibly some other members will start thinking about what they're playing with here and what they're trying to undermine. As I have said before -- and I hate to be repetitive, but I guess I'm going to have to be -- they are playing with and undermining democracy. If they want to change the rules, we have ways and means. If they want to reform this parliament, by all means do it, but let's talk about the whole package. Let's not talk about one issue. Let's not talk as if this were the only issue. At this point the government looks like it has put itself into a corner and is
[ Page 9533 ]
manipulating the rules. Maybe it is using an issue to fulfil its agenda, whatever that agenda may be.
We have put forward reforms. They were put forward long before this motion ever hit the floor of this House. If we want to talk about reform, let's talk about the whole package. Let's talk about free votes and having fixed days for parliament. Let's talk about lengthening question period. Let's talk about having time for constituency issues -- five constituency issues of two minutes apiece. Let's talk about that type of reform. Let's add voting for the Speaker at the same time. We find no fault or problem with that. We find fault in trying to get rid of a Speaker midway through a term, for whomever's agenda it may be.
This motion says we're going to vote for the Speaker. I've read these before, and I'll read them again. We have a set of rules we live by, developed by Sir Erskine May. We have a set of rules by Beauchesne. They clearly state when a Speaker shall be put into office and when the Speaker will leave office. For instance, it states on page 228 of Sir Erskine May's book: "The Speaker, thus elected and approved, continues in that office during the whole Parliament, unless in the meantime he" -- or she, and I'm putting the "or she" in there since it's not in the actual quote -- "resigns or is removed by death." You haven't resigned, hon. Speaker, and as I've said before, you're not about to die -- and hopefully won't in the near future. That means we have to vote for a new Speaker at the beginning of the new parliament, the thirty-sixth parliament. To accommodate the government and give them a way out, we put forward a motion stating that at the beginning of the thirty-sixth parliament we should vote for an elected Speaker. Let us do this. Let's have a closed ballot.
I have to ask one other question. How come we have a closed ballot for this particular situation, yet when it comes to unions and that type of thing, there's no closed ballot? What is the standard here? Where is the democracy? I've said before, this is the highest place in the land that people come to. They expect us to lead by example. That means we have to abide by all rules. Our rules emphatically state what we shall do. Yet we are about to bend them due to a political agenda. That is distasteful, to say the least. We have to abide by our rules, otherwise how can we sit in this House and debate the laws of the land? How can we expect the people of the province to abide by our laws if we will not even abide by the rules that govern our House and our debates when we make the laws that people live by?
In Beauchesne it says: "The Speaker continues in office during the whole Parliament, unless in the meantime he resigns, dies or dismissed by resolution of the House." None of these have happened. These are the books that we live by. Another point is the independence of the Speaker. If this motion is allowed to go ahead, what credibility does the Speaker have left in this House? After all, the rules will have been bent and the government will have put their own Speaker into place. What credibility will that Speaker have? The Speaker is here to do one thing, and that is to ensure that all voices in this House are heard fairly. If the government can remove the Speaker at any time it wishes, who does the Speaker answer to? Does the Speaker answer to the House or to the government body? We're tampering with the underpinnings of democracy. It has taken 700 years to get to this point. It's going to take this government a week and a half to regress 300 years.
Hon. Speaker, if I go back to the rule book that we live by, it 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." The impartiality of the next Speaker will definitely be in question.
I cannot emphasize enough: we are playing with fire. If this government wants to change the rules, so be it. Do it in a parliamentary forum. If we don't do it in the right manner, this House and this parliament has no credibility with the people of British Columbia. They elect us to be leaders, and we are definitely not showing that to the province of British Columbia at this time.
For instance, hon. Speaker, when this motion was brought forward by the Premier he stated that you were implementing things like the Buy B.C. program, and I credit you with trying to do that. But if you think back far enough, it's the same government that tried to cancel the Buy B.C. program. Now they're running around touting it as being the goose that laid the golden egg.
Here we have another one. We have a Speaker who is doing a very adequate job, and they want to replace her. Just what is this government about? I think it's a shallow attempt at reform for the agenda of the government. This motion does nothing to enhance the credibility of this government, nor of this parliament. It does nothing but undermine it.
Hon. Speaker, the importance of your independence cannot be overemphasized. We have two authorized parties in this House and nine members of various groups -- whether they be three, two or one in each group. How will these people be heard in this parliament if the Speaker is controlled by the government? Will the government allow these people to be heard? What controls will this government have over the Speaker?
I'm going to quote what the Rt. Hon. Horace King said about the Speaker. He was the Speaker of the House of Commons in Westminster. I hope some of the government members over there are listening:
"And so, through the centuries, all ties, financial and personal, between first the Crown, then the government, have been eroded, and now none remains. The Speaker has one allegiance only" -- and I emphasize "The Speaker has one allegiance only" -- to the House of Commons and to each of its members individually. The Speaker, so impartially chosen, must not only be impartial in the Chair but by his every action outside it must show the House, and indeed the country, that he is so. He must sever his party connections."
Hon. Speaker, those words fit into this debate. Those words say it all: they must sever their party connections. How is the next Speaker going to be able to do this if the government can remove the Speaker at its will? I am afraid that this is the beginning of a landslide. If they get away with changing the Speaker at this point, what will the next rule be that offends this government? What will the next rule be that they'll want to change? What is the next item that will need to be manipulated so the government agenda will go through?
[2:45]
Hon. Speaker, this motion is the start of a flood, the start of a landslide. We have to protect our democratic institutions; we have to protect the rules we live by. If we don't abide by them, how can we expect the people of this province to show us any respect or give us any credibility? They're expecting leadership. Are they really getting it?
What does this parliament stand for? Does this parliament stand for the people of British Columbia or does this parliament stand for a particular party or a particular political ideal? I firmly believe it stands for the people of British Columbia. If that be the case, then we cannot just go around bending the rules and remaking them as we wish. We have to do it in the proper and rightful manner. If we don't,
[ Page 9534 ]
then we don't deserve the title of MLA. We don't deserve to sit in this House and debate the laws that those people are going to live by; we don't deserve that right.
We've come to a crossroads in this parliament. The people on the government side of the House should think twice before they tamper with these rules, because they're tampering with the credibility of this parliament. They're tampering with whether they will be honoured in what they say, and whether they will be treated as leaders or as politicians.
Hon. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this situation. I do hope that government members will start thinking about what they're tampering with -- and that is the democracy of our country.
H. de Jong: I'm not planning to speak for very long on this issue. Much has already been said, and I don't feel like repeating a lot of it. However, I believe that we're dealing with a most delicate issue, an issue that I don't think the Premier should have entered into. If he really was concerned about the present system, as the Speaker normally is the Speaker for the entire legislative period that a government is elected, then I believe that there could have been a better way to address this issue.
We had a committee on legislative reform. Certain mandates were given to that committee; perhaps they were limited. However, if the Premier was sincere about this proposal that he's brought before us in the last week.... Surely, this must not have been a last-minute thought or idea. This committee had not reported to the Legislature a year ago. Why wasn't it thought of at that time? It could have been added to the process of that legislative committee. If the independence of the Speaker is so important, which I believe it is, then it would have been far better dealt with through a committee of the Legislative Assembly. At the same time, I'm sure that that legislative committee would not have come up with a motion such as we have on the floor today.
I believe the independence of the Speaker cannot be emphasized enough in terms of legislative operations. While we're all here together to discuss many issues, all parties should have equal representation in terms of our opportunity to speak on those issues. I surely would have expected better from the Premier. I'm very disappointed that the Premier has sought to bring this motion to the floor in this fashion, because the intent of this motion is to change the Speaker halfway through its mandate.
J. Dalton: It seems strange to me -- and, I hope, to many of the other members in this House -- that on the sixth day of this session of the thirty-fifth parliament we're dealing with this motion. What happened to the reply to the throne speech? What's going to happen tomorrow? I presume the budget will be on time. Our response to that, which of course is more important to the people of this province than arguing halfway through a parliament whether the rules should be changed.... The people of this province are aware of this issue, and I know that as a fact. It's not just the people in my constituency who express surprise over this motion. I was in Williams Lake over the weekend, and the people of that community are aware of this issue. Again, they are very surprised that we are debating this. The people of Williams Lake, many of whom are out on the lawn at this very moment expressing concern about the CORE process, are indeed aware of this motion. I spoke to no one over this last weekend who is in any way supportive of this alleged reform that the Premier is dumping on us.
The people of this province, and the 25,000 of them who are outside today, want the economy, jobs, the budget and the reply to the throne speech dealt with, not this parliament spinning its wheels and wasting its time over this uncalled-for, poorly timed and ill-conceived motion. If the members opposite are of the opinion that we in the opposition are simply standing on our feet to spin some time out, that is entirely untrue. All members of this House who were elected two and a half years ago to honour a time-honoured process should feel very uncomfortable, to say the least, about the nature of and the intent behind this motion.
First, I would like to comment about process in the particular sense and also in the general sense. Generally speaking, we should of course be concerned about process. We should be concerned about parliamentary reform. We should be concerned about jobs and the economy, and the environment as well. If people are of the opinion that the 25,000 people outside are not environmentally-minded, I would point out that they are far from accurate. All of us are concerned with process, but how many people in this province are sympathetic to this particular process that we're going through now to change the rules? I would point out that we're only changing one rule if indeed we pass this motion. Why are we not considering the many standing orders of this parliament, and not just one?
I do have some serious concerns about process. I think we've gone off the rails here. If we were doing credit to this province and the people we represent, we would be outside listening to the concerns of the 25,000, or we would be inviting as many of them as possible into this gallery, this public process, so they could hear the things that we should be debating today, days previous and, hopefully, days hence. But we're not doing that. Instead of debating the throne speech, the budget speech and other things, we're going through this very hollow exercise of fabricating a change to the rules of parliament, presumably to substantiate the Premier's own unstated agenda. Well, it's certainly not the agenda of the opposition.
I presume that the Premier and the members opposite will disguise this motion as reform. Reform, of course, has taken on a very populist connotation these days in the aftermath of the federal election last year and in the recent crossing, shall we say, of three former Social Credit MLAs to the Reform Party. Putting aside the so-called reform, I have to question, firstly, the timing of this alleged reform motion and, secondly, the content of it.
The timing -- as many members commented on previously, and I would just remind everyone one more time -- is unfortunate, to put it mildly. Why are we even considering electing a Speaker half way through the life of this parliament? The question begs an answer. Anyone who has had any exposure to parliamentary process and has had the occasion to read authorities such as Sir Erskine May will know very well that it is unheard of for a parliament to remove a Speaker, or to even create that opportunity, during the life of a parliament unless, of course, there is a good reason, such as the resignation or -- heaven forbid -- the illness or death of the current Speaker.
Secondly, dealing with the content of this motion, why are we only dealing with one proposed reform to the standing orders? Members will note that the Liberal House Leader has a motion on the order paper which contains ten items of reform to the standing orders, and one refers to the election of a Speaker. We in the opposition would like to debate the entire issue of parliamentary reform, and if our motion were to be passed, we could then implement the
[ Page 9535 ]
entire package, but not with the understanding that we would then immediately conduct a secret ballot election for a Speaker; that would be postponed until the next parliament. If the Liberal House Leader's motion is entertained and passed this session, it is certainly not our intention to pull the rug on the Speaker and go through a rather shady and dubious secret ballot process.
I question the motives of the Premier in bringing in a motion at this time that deals with only one of the many needed reforms to this parliament. I'm hopeful that the Premier will rethink the process he is putting this parliament through. Hon. Speaker, it certainly would be desirable for all concerned -- perhaps not necessarily for yourself, but for the rest of us -- if this motion were abandoned or, as our previous amendment suggested, if we were to postpone the implementation of it until the next parliament. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated.
I'm thinking for a moment about what motives, if any, one might read into the Premier's motion. Of course, the intention behind it is not stated on paper. But one phrase in section 11(2) of the motion before us certainly does comes to mind: "or for any other reason." I would suggest that this very open-ended phrase in this motion invites parliamentary abuse. It invites people to speculate, quite properly, on the motives behind this motion. Whether we care to read things into the Premier's motion or not, I'm suggesting to this House that there are unfortunately negative connotations that the wording of the motion creates, putting aside the timing and content that I've already commented on.
I would add -- and this is perhaps the most unfortunate thing of all, and certainly no particular comment on any given Speaker or on the process itself -- that we do have to question the compromised position that this motion would put you in, hon. Speaker, or any future Speaker of this House, in regard to the well-recognized independence and impartiality of the Speaker, whomever that person may be.
[3:00]
I'm suggesting that that independence and impartiality will be severely compromised if we pass this motion at this time and immediately move on to a secret ballot to elect the next Speaker. I'm hoping that will not be the case. First, of course, I'm hoping that we will defeat this motion. Failing that, I'm hoping that perhaps the Premier will come to his senses and withdraw the motion. Third, I'm hoping that this government will entertain -- even though we have had an amendment defeated -- the prospect of putting this motion, if passed, on hold until the next parliament.
Failing all of those, then I guess we're going to have to wait and see what the next move will be, when and if this motion is implemented. But it does severely question the motives not only as read into the motion but, unfortunately.... This is where the people of British Columbia are particularly concerned; they are questioning and certainly wondering about the motives of the Premier and the executive council of this parliament....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The Chair has allowed some leeway, but the member well knows that he must at all times choose his words carefully in this House. I would like the member to clarify that he is not impugning the motives of any other hon. member of this House. If the member would confirm that any remark he might have made was unintentional, then he may continue with his debate.
J. Dalton: Certainly I have no intention of impugning the motives of the Premier or the executive council.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Continue with your debate.
J. Dalton: I am simply stating the concerns that I have heard from people both in the lower mainland and in the interior of this province, who are questioning and wondering about the rationale behind this particular motive at this particular time. I think that's fair comment. If indeed we pass this motion -- and given the number of members opposite, I suppose that is a likelihood -- then I would further observe that we'll have to see what the next process will be.
We in opposition applaud reform of the standing orders. That's why I again point to the motion of our House Leader on the order paper. Those ten features in the motion demonstrate the will of the opposition to seriously consider reform of the standing orders, but it is certainly not our intention to support only one motion that deals with only one order. We have to question what lies behind the motion. It's going to be very disruptive to the life of this parliament if we have to go through the exercise of voting for another Speaker, and I hope that is not the case. If we have to go through that exercise, it is certainly going to set a completely different tone to the rest of the thirty-fifth parliament. I hope all members will agree that that is an unfortunate characteristic which we do not wish to place on this parliament.
So I hope the members opposite will give serious thought to the rationale behind this motion and will perhaps join the opposition and, I believe, the third, fourth and fifth parties in opposition -- if I can put it that way -- in making sure that this motion is defeated or in convincing the Premier and the executive council that its implementation should be postponed until the thirty-sixth parliament.
L. Reid: I certainly concur with my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano when he talks about postponing a motion of this magnitude. I also agree with my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour when he talks about this decision dismantling a cornerstone of the parliamentary system that we know to be in effect in the Commonwealth.
The election of a Speaker is one of the most important deliberations that a parliament will ever engage in. It must be taken seriously. It is the only avenue that members of the Legislature have to represent their interests outside the House. The Speaker is the conduit for communication among the 75 of us in this chamber; that's an incredibly important exercise. That is the way taxpayers learn about our activities in this chamber and about the magnitude of our decisions, which can have a dramatic and direct impact on their lives.
As my colleagues noted this afternoon, there is no place for partisanship in the election of a Speaker. It must remain above partisanship. We must speak with a sense of diplomacy, taking the high road. Whenever British Columbians watch the activities in this chamber, they must have some sense that the high road is being taken, because all of the actions, discussions and deliberations in this chamber directly impact their lives.
When we talk about health care, we talk about focusing on the patient. When we talk about education, we talk about focusing on the learner. In this chamber we must focus on the process. It is the only framework that British Columbians have for analyzing our decisions and their repercussions. It is the only forum they have for bringing their concerns and differing points of view to their elected members.
That scenario is unfolding today on the lawns of this Legislature. Upwards of 20,000 British Columbians brought
[ Page 9536 ]
their concerns to this chamber. They did that because they believe in the independence of this chamber. They believe that their elected officials, overseen by the Speaker, will have a sense of consideration for their concerns and will respond to them, which will allow for more engaging deliberation. That is the need that British Columbians have; that is the need that only this chamber can address. We are compromising what they can expect from this chamber by suggesting that it is slipshod or not of the highest order or ideal; that will do us all a disservice. The Premier's motion will have an impact on every member of this Legislature and consequently on the British Columbians that we represent. If they are looking to see if our House is in order today, frankly it is not. It is in disarray.
The situation in British Columbia does not happen in legitimate parliaments. People do not try to bastardize the process halfway through a term of office. There has to be some sense that the process is paramount. There must be an understanding that when British Columbians or lobby groups or anyone else comes to the doorsteps of this chamber, they will be received impartially and in the pursuit of excellence. We must have a high-road approach to government.
I do not have that sense today as I stand in this chamber to debate a very distasteful motion. I do not find this exercise useful or a good use of the taxpayers' dollar. Indeed, we are losing sight of the fact that this exercise will be very costly at the end of the day. My hon. colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano noted that this is the sixth day of debate. This chamber opened a week ago today, and we are still mired down in a process that should not be unravelling this parliament as it is today. That is a significant concern.
I agree with my colleagues in terms of the timing of this exercise. If the Premier of this province believed that strongly in a freely elected Speaker, where was he in the fall of 1991 when he had every opportunity between the swearing-in of the cabinet on November 5 and the March spring session of the first parliament? Months elapsed when that decision could have been taken with some sense of preserving what is important about a democratic and parliamentary process. Where was the thought, the consideration and the sense of timing that would make for better operation of this chamber and for a better sense of how parliamentary this system must be, and must be perceived to be? That is the issue today. The perception is that this House is not in order and that this parliament is not proceeding as a legitimate parliament should. That is the concern of the official opposition.
I know that all colleagues on the floor of this chamber will have had the question posed to them: what is the rationale for taking the decision at this time? So I ask: what is the Premier's rationale? Why is it vitally important for this Premier to move into six days of debate on an ill-timed motion? What is the rationale for choosing this week? What is the rationale for choosing this term of office? What is the rationale for choosing the third sitting instead of the first sitting? I don't have an answer for my constituents. They come back to the table and ask: what is the goal? What does this Premier hope to achieve by miring this House in a debate that is not in the best interests of the taxpayer, that is not something the taxpayers would choose to spend their dollars on? I am firmly committed to a sense of democracy, but it has to be tied to some kind of fiscal decision-making. I suggest that this decision -- which is costing the taxpayers an additional six days of debate -- is not in the best fiscal interests of British Columbians. On the eve of the budget in this province I would suggest that this government has once again taken a very ill-timed decision with zero consideration for the taxpayer. That is what British Columbians are beginning to expect from New Democrats in this province: that their pocketbook gets the least consideration. That has to be brought to the fore and has to figure prominently in this debate.
This has been six days of distasteful debate. It is objectionable, and it's not a fair and decent process. I have not heard anyone on the government benches justify, create a rationale for, or even discover what a goal might be for such an event to be unfolding. My colleagues have touched on whether this is parliamentary reform or some type of manipulation of debate. Without this government indicating the rationale or the goal, the voters are subject to some sense of manipulation and of this parliament not proceeding as it should. What happened to the fineness that the majority of New Democrats in this province indicated to the people of British Columbia? They were going to return some fineness to the process. This is not about fineness; this is blatant disregard for the voter, blatant disregard for the taxpayer, and disrespectful of what parliamentarians should be engaged in. Parliamentarians should be engaged in the business of people. This does not qualify as a legitimate activity for this parliament halfway through a term of office.
You will have heard all my opposition colleagues speak to parliamentary reform. We favour parliamentary reform. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano talked about a string of reforms that would make sense in this parliament. He talked about a fixed election day, a fixed budget day and a fixed length of sitting. All of those are issues. If this was a true commitment to parliamentary reform, we would be debating a package of reforms. All of us, at different times, have said that this House would be well served by a package of parliamentary reforms. If that's the case, why select an element and put it in place when it is ill-timed and incredibly disrespectful to a process?
Again, we've talked about whether this is meaningful change. You know my feelings on that: I don't believe it is. I see it again as a complete and utter lack of priority on behalf of this government. This is not the taxpayers' business; this is not what we should be doing on the eve of an election. I'm looking to members in this House and to the New Democratic caucus to stand up and demonstrate some political will -- to say that it may be the right move to make and to choose an appropriate time to make it. If we can stand today and say that this decision will be taken, that the thirty-sixth parliament will have a freely elected Speaker, superb. If this Premier had had the foresight to say that at the beginning of the thirty-fifth parliament, superb. But mucking in the process is not in anybody's best interests.
I speak particularly to there being some sensitivity around the issue. There isn't any being demonstrated here today. There's disregard: if we continually keep our eyes engaged on the paper, we can somehow ignore the fact that this is a very distasteful debate. I can't ignore that. I think it lacks sensitivity in the extreme that this activity would engage us for six days.
[3:15]
Again, hon. colleagues have talked about the select standing committee. What is the role of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform? Was the role to bring a package forward to this chamber? Yes. And certainly the discussion -- we have had it informally, if you will, at the committee table -- is the work that should have been referred to the committee. I don't think anyone would disagree. Indeed, if the committee process in British Columbia doesn't work, are we simply engaging in yet again another farce -- as if somehow we're delivering the business
[ Page 9537 ]
of the people through all these prescribed channels, but in fact the real business is occurring in the back rooms of this province? I think that is evident today in the fact that we are in this debate and that package of reforms did not reach this chamber through the legitimate parliamentary process.
I think it's up to every single member of this chamber to hold the Premier accountable for the decisions he has taken and the motion he has put forward. Moreover, I think the larger picture is that every single taxpayer should hold this Premier and government accountable for the fact that this debate is in its sixth day when it should not have taken place, in terms of interrupting a term of office.
I'm looking for some sensitivity from this government; I'm looking for some sense of timing. Neither of those traits has been demonstrated. Certainly the issue must be whether or not the political will can be demonstrated to stay to the high road on this issue. I trust that it can be. I look to the members of this chamber to return a reasonable decision that allows for some sensitivity and for a greater understanding of what parliamentary process is all about. I've not seen that demonstrated by my hon. colleagues across the floor. I'm looking for that today.
I trust that British Columbians will not again be disappointed by the fact that this government somehow has the perception they can ride roughshod over process and never be held accountable. There must be some sense of accountability in this process, or we will not be able to move beyond playing politics with it. That is my concern and the concern of the majority of constituents who've come to my office in the last number of days. Their question, posed directly to me, is: why is it that this government believes they can continue to play politics in British Columbia? Why is it, when legitimate channels exist, that this government chooses the back room? That is the question I leave for consideration, and that I and my constituents currently are seeking an answer to. We need to know whether this government is interested in doing the right thing, in demonstrating some decency, or if it is simply going to muck about in the process, as have previous governments which have left nothing in place that British Columbians can be proud of. I await your response.
U. Dosanjh: We heard the hon. member for Richmond East refer to many things, such as the House being in disarray and being mired in debate that is distasteful. We have heard the tenor and tone of the contributions made by the Liberal opposition over the past few days on this issue, and I think we could come to the proper conclusion that most of the distaste, the disarray and the being mired in the debate came from Liberal opposition benches.
We have attempted to focus on the real issue. The member for Matsqui -- the self-described farm boy -- talked about the game of hockey and about the referee being changed. Being a colleague from the bar, I want to congratulate him on his speech, but the logic of the speech was erroneous. He said that we are engaged in changing the referee mid-game. The issue is that we're clearly not engaged in changing the referee mid-game; we are engaged in putting in place rules for a possible change should a vacancy occur.
Interjections.
U. Dosanjh: I see the anger on the faces of members on the Liberal benches. They obviously can't understand that they have not been able to focus on the puck during this game of hockey over the last few days.
I have also heard from the opposition benches that we should be bringing in an entire package. I want to assure the opposition that the whole package will be coming in gradually. As the Premier has indicated, you will see legislation on recall and initiative, and you will have a full opportunity to debate that. I chaired the committee that put that report together, and it has been passed to the Clerk of the House, therefore to the House. During those hearings, in our private conversations and in the public submissions made to the committee, many members of the public made submissions that there should be changes. Obviously one of the changes that the government has attempted to bring forth is the election of the Speaker in the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of the Speaker.
I've also heard that there's a problem with the secret ballot referred to in this motion. Many of the Commonwealth jurisdictions that elect their Speakers, including some Canadian jurisdictions, have the election by secret ballot. I don't know what problem the members opposite have with a secret ballot on this issue.
I've also heard today, and over the last many days, that this whole process somehow calls into question the credibility of the office of the Speaker. I'm somewhat shocked and saddened that members on the opposition benches -- particularly the Liberal benches -- have thrown nothing but mud at this whole process. They have attempted to cast aspersions on this process and on the office of the Speaker. They have expressed innuendo in the House, and we've stood on points of order reminding them to confine the debate to the issues.
If you look at the essence of the motion, it tells you that it's essentially for putting in place a mechanism to elect the Speaker in the event that a vacancy occurs in that office. Most of what the members of the opposition -- particularly the Liberal opposition -- have said has essentially been to no avail, because they have not addressed the issue. I challenge any member of the Liberal benches to show any clause in this motion that, either directly or by inference, entitles or authorizes the government benches to remove a Speaker midterm. Obviously the Liberals cannot take up that challenge, because no such clause exists. There is nothing in this motion that removes the Speaker by the authority of the executive. All of the debate from the opposition benches over the last many days has been centred and focussed on this issue. They now have a lawyer in their ranks, and I'm surprised that he actually made a great attempt to focus on this issue. I think my hon. colleague for Matsqui failed in his analogy, because we're not engaged in the task of removing a Speaker. We're engaged in the task of framing rules for an eventuality, should a vacancy occur.
Obviously there has been a movement for reform; essentially this is one part of that movement for reform. Other reforms will come. Maybe the opposition will take the same view at that time and oppose those reforms as well, for whatever reasons that might please them at that time. This motion is so clear. It takes power away from the executive, the Premier and the governing party, whatever party that might be, and gives it to this Legislature, the institution that represents the people of B.C. For the opposition to stand and say that this is a power grab by the executive, the Premier and the New Democrats is not true. It shocks me. It really is shocking for them to arrive at that conclusion. In fact, this takes power away from the executive and the Premier and gives it to all of us as members of this House. If anything, it will strengthen the role of the Speaker. Once we put it in place, the whole electoral process will enhance
[ Page 9538 ]
the credibility of the office of the Speaker, contrary to what has been said by the Liberal benches.
I want to come to the actual wording of the motion, which has caused some pain and suffering to the opposition benches, specifically section 11(2). If I might just go to that, let me say that the words "or for any other reason" refer not to the reason for the removal of the Speaker. In any sensible reading of this motion, those words very clearly refer to the reasons for a vacancy occurring. What the motion says is that if the vacancy occurs for specified reasons, or for any other reasons, there would be a process in place to elect the next Speaker of this august assembly. For the last many days and many hours, wasting taxpayers' money, the Liberal opposition has not been able to understand that issue.
An Hon. Member: You sound like a lawyer.
U. Dosanjh: I'll give you free advice if that's what you need.
Obviously this opposition is unable to understand the thrust of this motion, and has been unable to for the last many days. Let me conclude by saying to this House -- particularly to the Liberal benches and to whomever might be listening and watching - - that this is reform aimed at taking power away from the governing party, the Premier and the executive, and giving the power to elect the next Speaker of this House, whenever a vacancy occurs, to the members of this House. This motion will put a process in place that would allow the members of this House to elect the Speaker, in the event a vacancy occurs, by secret ballot. That in essence is the net effect of this motion. We have heard comments from the the Liberal opposition, for hours on end, which do not focus on the real issue. In fact, in their rambling remarks, many of them -- not all of them -- have attempted, in my respectful view, to bring the office of the Speaker into disrepute. I am actually shocked and saddened. They may not have wanted to do so; they may simply have done so inadvertently, but that has been the net effect. Over the last many days in this House, they have been able to rake the office of the Speaker through the mud, in the name of parliamentary debate. I want to say that the government benches will not participate in that muckraking. The government benches will be focused on and will address the issues.
[3:30]
Hon. Speaker, we want to see reform in this House -- of the government, of initiative and recall, of the election of the Speaker and of many other issues that might come before you -- for debate in this session. I want to conclude by saying, hon. Speaker, that I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, as one of the newest members of this House, I should tell you that this debate has been quite interesting to me. I was away on the weekend in the interior, and I talked to people about the interesting activities that take place in the House. I refer to the motion when it was first debated, in terms of its point of order. I should tell you, hon. Speaker, that only a woman of great integrity and ability like yourself could have made the rules clear for us so we could proceed with this discussion. In fact, when I talked to people outside the House and said that the first issue we dealt with in the House was whether or not it was possible to amend a standing order that didn't exist, they got a kind of smile on their face. When I told them that the result was yes, you can in fact amend a standing order that doesn't exist, they said: "What's going on in there, anyway?" It's important, hon. Speaker, that we have people of your ability to help remind us of the history of this place when we carry out the public's business here in the Legislature.
I was privileged when I was elected to serve Vancouver-Quilchena to have the opportunity to have a brief interview with you. Many of the members of the Legislature have not, because at the time they were sworn in, you were not the Speaker. You pointed out the importance of the office of Speaker in terms of its fundamental independence from the rest of the House, and that in fact it is the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that the debate in this House is fair and unbiased. It seems to me, hon. Speaker, that you have done that excellently.
In spite of the fact that just two short years ago, like many other members here, you were new to the post, you have learned your task. As they said to me when I sat through the first debate, they felt that you did an excellent job in reminding us how to interpret the rules of the House so that we could carry out this discussion of what the Premier calls reform. The motion before us, of course, is not reform. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington said that he's absolutely shocked by the discussion that's going on: how on earth could we ever think the things that have been said by the Liberal opposition? Well, I suppose it's because of the pre-framing that was done by the Premier and his public relations lackeys, who went out and explained to everyone what his course of action was going to be. Indeed, he was a tough new leader who was going to get this House in shape if it was the last thing he did, and if the Speaker left, so be it, because he was going to be the leader. That is exactly why people on this side of the House questioned some of the motivation behind this issue.
As a new member of the House, I think it's very important for all of us to sit back every once in a while and remember what we were taught about parliaments. Parliaments are places where people are able to express themselves fully and completely, and where those we serve get to hear their voices in a free and open manner. That's why one of the primary reforms that we have recommended to this House -- which I notice the government has decided not to go ahead with -- is the issue of free votes. When you have 20,000 people on the lawn of the Legislature, one of the reasons they feel they have to be there is that their voices have not been heard by this government. Their voices have not been recognized by this government.
If we want to have reform and to open up this House so that it reflects the values that parliaments are supposed to reflect.... When they were first invented over 600 years ago, it was to make sure that people heard their voices, and that in hearing their voices, there was some order and some semblance of fairness in the discussions that took place. That is the role of the Speaker. I know you understand that, hon. Speaker, and I just wish that the government did.
The problem with the recommendation that suggests that it's time to change the rules halfway through a parliament is that there will always be people who will be suspicious of why the rules were changed, particularly when the government has gone out of its way to position the changes as some political retribution for not properly carrying out the duties of the office. That's why people are upset and concerned.
It is absolutely essential that we reform this place. I know you understand that, hon. Speaker, and I believe that most members of the House understand that. But the reform must be complete. The reform has to open up this House so that all our constituents can hear their voices during debate. We certainly appreciate and welcome reform that would call for
[ Page 9539 ]
free votes on all issues, with the exception of the throne speech and the budget speech. There are differences of opinion across this vast province, and people across this province expect to hear their communities represented in public debate, as opposed to hearing only the voices of the executive council, while the rest of the back bench marches in unison to assure that their public relations gimmicks are put through. That is not what parliamentary reform is about. It is essential, even to a newcomer like me, that we maintain the integrity of the office of the Speaker not by interference from the executive branch or from the government, but by saying that we will have the election of a Speaker in this House and that we will allow people to choose the Speaker freely and openly -- but that we will do that at the beginning of a parliament, not partway through the parliament when there are all kinds of innuendoes as to why it is taking place.
I believe that true reform in this House does not start with the Speaker's chair but with things like free votes and issues like opening the Public Accounts Committee to full public scrutiny at all times and on a regular basis throughout the year. It starts with providing fixed dates for the opening of parliament and for the budget speech, so that British Columbians can be properly prepared for these issues when they are brought before them and can properly judge the activities of the government.
It is crucial, it seems to me, that we do not fall prey to the reform of expedience. On behalf of my colleagues and others in this parliament, I would ask that you do not decide that it is important for you to resign; it is important for you to remain in the chair. We would encourage you, hon. Speaker, to resist the temptation to resign. I understand why that temptation might be there, but we encourage you to remain in the chair in order to support the tradition of an independent Speaker and to give us the opportunity to move forward through this parliament with a Speaker who has the support of the parliament. We request that you consider that request from the opposition, because we believe that it is vital to the independence of parliament.
On behalf of all my colleagues, we would reiterate the words of the hon. Government House Leader, who said that you are a woman of great integrity and ability and that you do an outstanding job. From my experience, you have done an outstanding job. You have our support, and we hope that you will remain in the Speaker's chair and maintain the integrity of the chair, so that we can maintain the integrity of the thirty-fifth parliament of British Columbia.
R. Neufeld: I want to start by saying that I fully support the reform of our parliamentary system through the election of a Speaker. It's very important that we reform our parliamentary system in a number of ways, and I think that reforming it by taking away the power of the Premier to appoint a Speaker is a step in the right direction for all of us.
Many members rose and spoke about the reform of parliament; it's amazing how many talked about reform. In fact, I talked about reform earlier, and I had enough in me to join the Reform Party, which espouses such things as free votes, fixed election dates, referendums and recall. A reform of our system is what I am in favour of.
I don't think anyone in this House disagrees with the election of a Speaker. I've listened to almost all the speakers that have risen, and I don't think anyone disagrees. What I disagree with is the timing. The motion seems to lead to the fact that there is going to be a vacancy in the chair. I find that disturbing and hard to deal with. For that to happen, you have to resign; it's on your shoulders, hon. Speaker. Not many have said that the government members are going to be able to take you out of the position you are in; you have to resign. I hope you don't succumb to that. I hope you don't resign, hon. Speaker, and that you stay in the chair. You have my full support in that.
Hon. Speaker, there must be a clear understanding of the independence of the Chair for our system to work. You have the confidence of this member. I think there is independence of the Chair at the present time. The job you have had of listening to the debate -- and I find much of it rather amazing -- over the last number of days must have been a little difficult. As a new member who came in at the same time that you did, many of the workings of parliament were strange to me; I didn't exactly know what happened. I must comment on how you've grown into the job that you've done for this House. I haven't always agreed with you, I can tell you that, hon. Speaker; but I have respected you. I've respected your decisions and abided by them.
It's not anything new. The House of Commons elects the Speaker. There's nothing wrong with it. It's moving into the next century. It's changing the system that we've had for hundreds of years and trying to adapt it to what we have in the present. But as I said, the difficulty I have is with the timing. If we do see you resign and a new Speaker is elected, what could happen if the executive council or members of any government, not just this executive council, feel that they don't agree with the next Speaker and force this again? That's the difficulty that we in our party have with what's taking place. It's obvious that the government of the day has the members to put in the chair who they wish to be in the chair, exactly the same as before.
Members of the Liberal opposition have talked about how it would not be a fair election to have a secret ballot. I can't think of a fairer way to do it than by secret ballot. That's part of the democracy that we work from.
Some Hon. Members: Who said that?
R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, this is also not the first change in Speakers. There have been a number of changes in Speakers; however they were done, they have been done. They've transpired in the past, and if it happens again, it happens again. But at least what we will have from here on in is the ability to elect a Speaker.
All the Liberals just catcalled me about a statement I made. I find it hypocritical of that group. I have sat in this House and listened to them talk to you the way that they have on different occasions, hon Speaker. They have totally disobeyed you and have had no respect at all for your chair. I find it difficult for them to stand up now and say that they support the Speaker.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I think the member is characterizing members of this party on this side of the House in ways that are neither factual nor becoming.
The Speaker: The point of order is well taken. I remind the hon. member to pay attention to parliamentary language and the practices of this House during his debate.
R. Neufeld: I know the truth hurts at times, so I can understand why they would be getting up on a point of order right away.
[3:45]
What I also find amazing is that they stand up today and talk about the number of days that we've been discussing this issue. How many dollars has it cost to stand in this House and talk about the election of a Speaker when every one of them says that they agree with it? I heard one of the
[ Page 9540 ]
members say that constituents are constantly coming into the office to ask them about what is happening with the election of a Speaker. I can tell you that in my hometown and my constituency, people are coming in and talking about jobs. They're talking about the economy of the province and some of the terrible regulations and high taxes that this present government is putting on us. That's what they're talking about, not the election of a Speaker. If you walk out on the street and ask ten people what's going in this House today, they won't know. That's why we have to reform what's happening in this House. That's why we have to start dealing with the issues of the day and reform what we're doing now.
Since Wednesday afternoon, we've been.... It has cost thousands of dollars to stand here and listen to some of the things that are coming out of these members' mouths. I find it very difficult, especially with the province the way it is today.
I'm going to close by re-emphasizing what I said earlier. I agree with the reform of our parliament: the election of a Speaker, free votes and all kinds of other reforms. I am very disturbed at the timing of this motion. It was brought forward in the middle of the parliament, rather than at the end. But so be it; that's the way it works. I guess that's the way democracy goes.
Hon. Speaker, for this to be a fait accompli, you must resign in the end. I'm asking you again not to resign. Stay in the chair, and later on in this session you can show how well you can handle things and how well you've done.
M. Farnworth: I stand today to speak on this motion, which is of fundamental importance not only to this House but to this province. We've heard much over the last week about timing: reform needs to wait until the next parliament. Reform does not need to wait until the next parliament; reform is an ongoing process, in the same way that our democracy and this parliamentary institution -- which we hold dear -- evolves. It has evolved over 600 years, as some of the members quite rightly pointed out. The history lessons were really interesting, but they didn't stay with the theme. The real theme was evolution. That's what our democracy has been about. Our system of government has changed over time to respond to the needs of people. It adapts not only to societal changes but to institutional changes.
Over the past two to three years there has been a loud cry for change in the way our society functions -- in the way we do business, in the way our educational system is delivered and in the way the government operates -- to make government more understandable and meaningful to people. They want to feel that they are a part of the government and that their government listens and understands.
I served on a committee that dealt with recall and referendum. Among the hundreds of presentations on that issue, time after time other points were raised that needed to be addressed. Some of them have been raised here, such as free votes and members being more responsible to the electorate. Many of them are valid concerns that need to be addressed. But I am concerned that sometimes we rush into changes without thinking them through properly. We need to make sure that when we make changes, we're at the leading edge.
We can change the rules by which we elect the Speaker, because I fundamentally believe that, if we are going to reform this system of government to make it more responsive, we have to bear in mind two things. First, I think any change must initially take place at the very heart of the way this House and Legislature functions. To me, that is the way in which we choose the Speaker. Second, the change -- whether it is in how we choose a Speaker or in how we go about reforming any of the other issues raised here -- must take place in a way that maintains the way this place works and respects the historical traditions that have led us to where we are today.
One of my greatest fears is that in the rush or push to change, whether it's driven inside this House or on a broader public scale, too often we succumb to the gimmick, to what is expedient or to what occurs south of the border. We have movements and people crying out for change, and what's often being advanced is a sort of continual grafting of a republican system onto our own parliamentary institutions. I think we have to be extremely careful in how we make those changes. That's why sometimes it takes a long time for committees to do their work and to study all the implications.
We have a parliamentary system of government. The independence of the Chair has been pointed out. There's nothing in this motion that will compromise that. What is taking place is a reform that takes place at the heart of our very institution. I think reform is an ongoing process; it's not stop-and-start. We have a system that over the years has evolved many different branches. New shoots have been grafted onto old shoots; roots have been strengthened. And traditions have evolved to suit and meet the needs of individual legislatures, peoples, languages and nations. But in their multitude of evolutionary forms, they have all kept one thing the same: they have maintained the basic tenets of parliamentary democracy.
It's been pointed out in this debate that somehow this motion will do away with that -- that it will be precedent-setting in other parts of the Commonwealth, for example. But that's not true. There are legislatures in the Commonwealth, for example, where the Speaker is not a member of the legislature; it's somebody who's not elected. Debates such as this have taken place in Houses all across the Commonwealth at different times, not just in this century but in previous centuries. One of the most divisive debates in this century took place in the House of Commons at Westminster, where the issue was: can a cabinet minister serve as Speaker? If you were to follow the opposition's arguments, that would never have taken place.
But the fact is that times and institutions change, and this institution will change as well. It changes because we have decided that we must change to meet society's demands that we adapt. If we don't make reforms, we become increasingly irrelevant, and people no longer look to us. Then everything changes and everything we hold dear is swept aside.
That is why what we're doing is important. We are dealing with how we choose a Speaker first -- that must be the fundamental reform -- then we must look at such things as free votes and recall and referendum. But all the time it must take place respecting our parliamentary traditions, our institutions and the history of how this office arose. This motion does not change the duties, responsibilities, or rights and privileges of the Speaker, but ensures that the Speaker is freely chosen by all members of this House by secret ballot.
It is one more step in what has been a long and often bloody process by which power is moved initially from the Crown, then to the executive council, then to all members of this chamber. It follows the process by which power has moved from the Crown to the public as a whole. When we as individual legislators are offered power, it is important that we take it.
All of us hold this place dear. Because we hold dear all its traditions, responsibilities and the rights and privileges that go with our position, we must ensure that change is thought
[ Page 9541 ]
through. I hope and believe that this is the beginning of a Legislature which becomes more responsive to the people of this province, opens up more to the people of this province, and that we go on from here to a wider range of reforms. To me, that is the most important thing of all.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, it's a treat to be able to speak to this motion, in that it's my opportunity to recognize the very fine services that you have performed for this House.
[4:00]
The role of Speaker is not just what goes on here in the House -- it is much wider. I want the House to recognize that the Speaker's role includes the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; it includes representing British Columbia in greeting and hosting dignitaries throughout the world. It is a job that has been exceptionally well done the last two years. I might note that the Speaker took the need for better recognition of women in politics into the international forum through her role as chair of the panel at the 1992 conference of the Commonwealth ParliamentaryAssociation. The Speaker was able to bring a very positive response to a potentially divisive area -- a bringing together of thought of major parliamentarians throughout the world.
I'd like to read one excerpt from the January 19, 1993, Parliamentarian: Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth:
"While this could have been a potentially divisive subject, the panellists and all delegates who spoke to the topic dealt with it in a fair and parliamentary manner. The session heard from both women and men in almost equal numbers and from all regions within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association."
That shows another facet of the role of Speaker. When we're making this decision on this motion, we have to realize that that role is not just as Speaker in this House, but that it is a parliamentary role representing and providing leadership to the world, on behalf of all of us. It is a non-partisan role. It's really important to recognize that and the need for continuity of that when we make this decision. Our Speaker has been recognized for her outstanding abilities within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. She has brought a lot of credit to the people of British Columbia as a result of her tireless efforts in working throughout Commonwealth conferences and in hosting an executive meeting of the Commonwealth conference in Victoria.
I'd also like to relate some comments made by the hon. Government House Leader on March 17, 1992, when the Speaker was chosen. The House Leader stated that the Speaker:
"is a woman of great integrity and ability, and I believe she will do an outstanding job as Speaker of this assembly.... Our joint support of the Speaker reflects the commitment of all members of the Legislative Assembly from all parties to work together in the best interests of British Columbians." He went on to say: "We all look forward to working with the new Speaker to ensure that we all work in the interests of British Columbia. "
I'd like all members on the government's side to remember that statement, because it was spoken on your behalf at that time. It certainly should hold true throughout the entire thirty-fifth parliament. The tradition in parliamentary history is that the Speaker is supported throughout the entire parliamentary session.
I'd also like to note the comments of the former House Leader of the Liberal Party, speaking for the official opposition. This is what was stated at that time:
"The office of the Speaker is little understood and often even less appreciated. However, it holds a key position in our system of parliamentary government. The Speaker presides over all of the debates in this assembly. The Speaker also performs an important administrative role for this assembly in the capacity of chair of the Board of Internal Economy. In addition, the Speaker fulfils a significant protocol function for our province" -- as I've related earlier -- "and we ask a lot of our Speaker. We ask the Speaker to shed her or his partisanship and to be the servant of all members of this House. Clearly this is not an easy task. It's a very challenging job. The traditional manner by which a Speaker is elected should be reviewed by members of this assembly."
Please note that this was from the Liberal official opposition, on Tuesday, March 17, 1992.
"Our caucus believes that it is time to consider a democratic reform of this process that would result in a free vote by closed ballot so that all members could participate directly in the process of electing the Speaker.
"This kind of reform is overdue in our province. British Columbians are ready for reform of institutions of government, and this would be an appropriate place for us to start."
That statement was the position of our caucus, with the idea that it would be implemented for the election of the next Speaker of this Legislature at the next parliamentary sitting; that would be the thirty-sixth parliament. As a caucus, we proposed amendments to that effect earlier in this debate. Through its majority in the House, the government has chosen to reject them. I am really concerned that they have rejected that opportunity to bring unanimous support to a motion like this. This kind of motion could be well supported with a minor change. It almost looks like there may be some other reason for the government.
For that reason, we in this opposition cannot accept this motion in its present manner. We will therefore be voting against it. Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity.
G. Farrell-Collins: I intend to be brief today, because I have the feeling that this motion is winding down to its, I suppose, inevitable conclusion. Despite many of the comments that have been made by the members of the government benches and indeed the various independent caucuses that sit in this House, I must say at the outset that the Liberal opposition is firmly in support of the election of the Speaker by secret ballot. The question isn't whether or not we support it. The question is whether or not we support the timing and intentions of this government. Quite clearly, we do not.
Despite the comments by members of the various independent caucuses and members of the government benches, in particular the member for Vancouver-Kensington, it was not the Liberal caucus that first addressed this issue in a public venue, the matter of there being a change in the senior officer of this House at the beginning of this session of the parliament. I received phone calls from various people in the media after they had heard it from the Government House Leader and others, and it was subsequently verified by the Premier.
The comments that have come from government members and members of the independent caucuses seemed to paint the Liberal caucus as the one that has somehow tried to besmirch the name of the Chair in this House. That simply has not been the case. We have spoken at some length about the inappropriateness of the timing and about the convenience of the timing for the government. I have been quite surprised by the lack of input and participation by the three and a half independent caucuses that sit in this House. With the collective experience of those people, and with the length of time that they have been here, I would have hoped that they, too, would feel some need to come to the defence
[ Page 9542 ]
of the Chair of this House -- not just in defence of the Chair in your name, hon. Speaker, but in the name of all Speakers who sat before and all who will sit in the future. The message that has been stated loudly and clearly throughout this whole process over the last several weeks is that whoever sits in that chair from now on will always have to look over their shoulder and wonder what the Premier is feeling that day. I think that's extremely unfortunate. That precedent is being set here today.
Hon. Speaker, you know as well as I do that I have probably been the one who has clashed with you more than anyone else in this House on various decisions made. I wouldn't have it any other way. It's your job to try and maintain order in this House and to maintain and interpret the rules as best as possible, and it's my job to work with my caucus and to defend our position as much as possible. Although those conflicts have been several, and some have been heated, that doesn't in any way mean that I have any less faith in the Chair or in the duties of the Chair in this House than any other member.
The issue is whether or not this government has the power to remove an incumbent Speaker against that person's will. The proof will be in the pudding, when we see who sits in that Chair tomorrow, the next day or the day after. Because if the intent of this motion is merely reform, then I would assume that you will continue to sit in that Chair. However, if the real intent of this motion is otherwise, then quite clearly the members of the New Democratic caucus will express that intent through a secret ballot. Their vast two-thirds majority in this House will clearly override any other votes that take place. We will see what the true intent of the New Democratic caucus and the Premier is with regard to this motion.
All of the flowery speeches and indignant responses made by various members in defence of this motion aside -- and most importantly and most disappointing to me personally, those made by the member for Vancouver-Kensington, whom I've had the privilege of working with on a number of committees -- the proof will be in the election. We'll really know then what has gone on here for the last two weeks; we will really know what is taking place and what this motion is all about. People will be able to throw Hansard out, because what the government members have been saying will have no relevance and will bear no relation at all to the final outcome. That is when the truth will finally come out in this House, and that's when we'll finally understand what has really been going on here for the last two weeks.
I said that I was disappointed by the lack of effort and the lack of input on behalf of the members of the three and a half independent opposition caucuses.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Okanagan East proudly states that she got her amendment passed. Well, they got their amendment -- I assume it was a joint amendment -- passed. That's good. We voted in favour of it because it was a good amendment, but I didn't see any ringing defence of the Chair by either of the two members in that caucus....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I see we're going to get her into the debate finally. That will be nice. But I didn't see any ringing defence. I haven't seen the once-proud member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who stood on his principles, stand once in this House to defend in any meaningful way the office of the Chair of this House with the vigour that he is known for when he defends his principles.
[4:15]
I have been disappointed by the various members of the independent caucuses. I remember when I was in grade school. There was a little plaque up on the wall. It said: "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to take over the world is for enough good people to do nothing." I know it's not an original quote, and it's not anything that's particularly outstanding and intellectual, but it's something that everybody in this House should keep in mind.
We have the members from the brand-new Reform caucus. We've had a reform of convenience by the Premier, and now we have reform of convenience by the Social Credit. When their clothes got so dirty with history, they changed their clothes. They put on a new suit, and somehow the people in this province are supposed to understand that somehow there has been a real fundamental change there. I think not.
I haven't seen a ringing defence of the office of the Speaker from the members of the Reform Party, from what's left of the members of the Social Credit, or from the other members. There has been some talk, there have been some noises and there have been some short statements, but I haven't seen any of the fight and vigour that we know some of those members are able to put forward. I would suggest that they are halfhearted in their defense and that they don't fundamentally believe in what they have been saying in other forums. If tomorrow -- or the next day, or the next day, or whenever the vote comes in this House to elect a new Speaker, and that, of course, will be at your discretion, hon. Speaker -- there has been any coercion, or if there is any sense that there has been coercion, members of the Liberal caucus will not take part in the election of a new Speaker. They will absent themselves from that vote and this House will decide on its own, and the public will be able to know exactly where the members of the New Democratic caucus and those members from the various independent parties stand with relation to the independence of the Chair of this House.
J. Tyabji: I understand that I'm not even the last speaker, so the debate goes on -- contrary to the previous speaker's assertions. This has been a lengthy filibuster by the Liberal caucus, and I think it's unfortunate. As we have said fairly succinctly in this debate -- and I guess the previous speaker missed those comments -- although those of us in the opposition.... I have yet to hear any member of the House question the job that the Speaker has done. Members of the independent caucuses have addressed comments in the media. Although we have made our comments and our position that we support this Speaker very clear in this House, we cannot compromise the position of Speaker by impugning her motives if, in her role as a member of the government caucus, she should choose to resign her position as Speaker. There is little that we can do within these chambers to prevent that. There are many things that we can do outside these chambers in terms of our direct representation to the Speaker and perhaps news releases that we can give to the media. However, in this debate it is not appropriate to impugn the possible future decision of the Speaker, because whether this motion were before us or not, the fact is that at any point the Speaker could choose to resign her seat for whatever reason. If this motion were not before us, we would end up seeing an appointment by the government.
[ Page 9543 ]
It seems to me that even at the end of a lengthy filibuster, the Liberal caucus has yet to understand what we're debating. We saw an amendment come forward from the Liberal caucus that would remove the right of this chamber to elect the Speaker if the Speaker should resign in this session.
When I spoke against that amendment, I challenged the new Leader of the Opposition to speak to that amendment -- or even on this motion. We heard the new Leader of the Opposition say that the motion amends a standing order that doesn't exist. That's not what the motion is doing. The motion amends current standing orders to bring in standing order 11, which had been deleted in a previous motion. We're not amending something that doesn't exist; we're amending the existing standing orders to introduce standing order 11. It's very important that we understand what we're debating in these chambers. We're not debating news releases, public commentary or the potential decisions of the Speaker -- as regrettable as those may be if this Speaker should choose to step aside. What we are debating is the opportunity for this Legislature to elect a Speaker.
The strong position of the members of the Alliance, whether they be sitting inside or outside this chamber, is to see an entire package of reform for this chamber. The election of the Speaker is something that we very much support. We also hope that this Speaker chooses not to resign, but if she does choose to resign, we would obviously support an election. We would not be petulant enough to withdraw our democratic right to vote in that election if standing orders are amended, as they will be when this motion passes. If this Speaker chooses to step aside, it is the obligation of every member of this chamber to participate in the democratic processes of the newly amended standing orders and elect a new Speaker.
It is really unfortunate if constituents in Liberal ridings do not have the opportunity to have their elected representatives stand and vote in a democratic process of the House. It is unfortunate that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- who chooses personal attacks rather than the attack of debate -- does not recognize that only the amendment by the leader of the Alliance was passed in this Legislature. Our leader understood what the debate was about, introduced an amendment and had it passed. Those are the issues that we debate in this House.
It's unfortunate if we don't recognize that the motion before us is for reform of the House. We can stand here as individual members and support or reject that motion. It is the obligation of the members to recognize what the debate is about and to vote on the basis of whether they support that reform or not.
A vote on this motion cannot be construed as a lack of confidence in the Chair. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi repeatedly tried to introduce a motion of confidence in the Chair. That attempt was supported by the members of the Alliance. We feel very strongly that a vote on this motion cannot be seen as an indication of the support of lack of support for the Chair. If I stand to support this motion -- and I will -- that does not in any way reflect on how I feel about this Speaker. As the Speaker knows, I support this Speaker.
Further to that, if this Speaker should choose to resign, I will respect her decision and understand that it is not something that the chamber can impose on her. It is very dangerous to assume that partisan politics can enter the debate on an amendment of a standing motion. Although we recognize the realities of partisan politics outside this House and in the debates of the House, those realities should only be relevant to the motion before us. It is not relevant to the debate and votes on this motion.
To correct the record, the members of the Alliance, small as our numbers in this House may be, have stood up very strongly and said that although we support the Speaker in her role, we support this motion and recognize that it's for reform of the House. We will be voting in the event of an election. We support reform of the standing orders, and we recognize that the motion before us was to amend the existing standing orders to allow for a more democratic process -- one that we as individuals campaigned for in the last election, and one that we would like to see encouraged in the Legislature.
Interjection.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, I have recorded that this member has already spoken to the main motion.
Interjection.
The Speaker: In order to move the amendment, the hon. member must have spoken to the main motion as well.
Hon. G. Clark: To conclude the discussion for the government side, the tone and tenor of the debate led by the official opposition has been disappointing. I understand their role is to oppose government initiatives, but on a genuine reform question of the House, one would have hoped that we could have had a discussion about reform of the standing orders. From time to time the members opposite have moved a genuine reform like this. Now that the government has moved, I certainly anticipated on behalf of government that it would have been warmly supported by all members of the House. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and we've had a longer debate than was anticipated.
In conclusion, I hope all members take very seriously that this is a reform of the House. It's in keeping with other reforms that the government will be bringing in -- including initiative and recall, which I know members opposite have talked about. I hope that members opposite will support legislation on reform and initiative. It's in keeping with their comments over the last couple of years on that very matter. But we'll wait for that when we have that debate.
This is an amendment to the standing orders of the House, which means that for the first time in history -- if this is passed -- regardless of party, philosophical or ideological differences, all members who are here representing a constituency will have an opportunity to seek election from their peers to sit as Speaker of the House. I think it's an important reform, hon. Speaker. It's one which the Mother of Parliaments in Britain has undertaken and one which the national Parliament in Ottawa has taken. I believe Saskatchewan is the only other province that's taken such a reform initiative.
It's in keeping with what our constituents want. We think it's in keeping with genuine reform of this House, making sure that the Speaker commands not only the support of members of the House, which we know Speakers have done from year to year, but also that it be seen that individual members of the House have a say in the person who sits in the Speaker's chair.
In that spirit, the government moves this amendment to the standing orders. It's in that spirit we had hoped the debate would take place. Unfortunately, that hasn't entirely been the case. I don't think it takes away from this genuine parliamentary reform initiative. I hope members will sit back
[ Page 9544 ]
on this vote and act in the manner in which the motion was intended: as a parliamentary reform initiative rather than as one of partisan debate. When they entered the chamber two and one-half years ago the opposition said they wanted to be constructive and different from the past. I know that's a struggle, having been in opposition myself. But I think there are occasions, which is very important, that members do act as independent members representing a constituency, not ones who are here simply by virtue of their political party.
[4:30]
I hope members will reflect upon that. I believe it's a very good reform of the House. It's in keeping with other reforms of parliamentary democracies across the country and in our British parliamentary system. I think it's one which is the beginning of other reforms which we might undertake over the course of the next two years, and I hope members will support it.
The Speaker: I will call the vote on the motion. With the indulgence of the House, given its length, I will refrain from reading the motion.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 54 | ||
|
Petter |
Marzari |
Pement |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Garden |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Cull |
Harcourt |
|
Gabelmann |
Clark |
MacPhail |
|
Ramsey |
Blencoe |
Barnes |
|
Pullinger |
Janssen |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Beattie |
Farnworth |
|
Doyle |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Lovick |
Jackson |
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Mitchell |
|
Serwa |
Weisgerber |
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
H. de Jong |
Hartley |
|
Lali |
Schreck |
Copping |
|
Brewin |
Krog |
Kasper |
|
NAYS -- 13 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Reid |
Campbell |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Hurd |
Gingell |
|
Stephens |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Warnke |
K. Jones |
M. de Jong |
| Symons | ||
The Speaker: The motion having passed, I beg the indulgence of the House to make a brief statement. While it would not normally be appropriate for the Speaker to comment on the debates of the House, I want to thank all hon. members for the many gracious comments you have made about your current Speaker. I add that if the media have missed any of them, the Chair would be pleased to provide them with an extra copy of Hansard.
On March 17, 1992, I was honoured to be unanimously elected as your Speaker, in the traditional manner that we have used in this House. I do not hesitate in saying that it was an overwhelming responsibility to assume as a newly elected Member of this Legislative Assembly. It is a delicate balance that every Speaker must strive to achieve between respect for freedom of speech and the need to maintain order, between the rights of the majority to govern and the rights of the minority to be heard. In return, every Speaker must be able to rely upon all hon. members to be vigilant in support of the institution itself. Members' support is the only armour that comes with this unique, exposed position. As your Speaker these last two years, it is inevitable that I have occasionally fallen into error, to the displeasure of one side of the House or the other. If, however, the measure of my time in the Chair is the fairness and impartiality with which I have presided in this chamber, and the respect that I have shown for this institution, then I am confident history will judge that I have been an honourable servant of this assembly.
This House has just engaged in almost ten hours of historic debate on one of the most fundamental aspects of our system of parliamentary democracy: the separation of powers and with it the essential independence of the office of the Speaker. If that debate has raised our awareness of the issue, and if the decision the House has made has reduced the vulnerability of this office, we will have made substantial progress indeed.
As always, I have listened carefully to the points of view expressed by all hon. members in debate. While the House divided on the particular motion before it, I believe it is important that members have the earliest possible opportunity to elect their Speaker according to the revised standing orders. In order to facilitate such an event, it is my decision to resign from the office, effective immediately upon adjournment. In view of the circumstances that have given rise to considerable controversy over recent weeks, I further advise that I will not be a candidate in that election. I know hon. members will appreciate that these are not decisions that I have taken lightly. It has been a great honour and privilege to serve as your Speaker.
I want to thank a group of men and women who seldom receive acknowledgement in this assembly, but whose work is essential to all of us as members -- namely, the officers of the House and the legislative staff. Their dedication and cooperation have been instrumental in the many positive changes we have made within the legislative precinct in the past two years and in the initiatives I have taken to raise public understanding of what we do in this place.
I also wish to thank my constituents of Burnaby-Willingdon for their ongoing encouragement and support, despite the constraints that sometimes exist when one's member serves as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Finally, I extend my best wishes to your new Speaker, whom I sincerely hope and trust will enjoy your full confidence and support to perform his or her duties in the best traditions of this high office.
This House now being without a Speaker, I do declare it adjourned, pending election in accordance with the revised standing orders which this House has now adopted.
Clerk of the House: Following the standing orders of this House, the election of the Speaker will take place tomorrow at 10 a.m.
The House adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]