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)
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 13, Number 9
[ Page 9545 ]
The House met at 10 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Hon. members, in accordance with the revision to the standing orders, the first order of business today will be the election of a Speaker.
In accordance with the standing order, the names of those who will be running for the office of Speaker have been posted in the corridors, and I believe the names appear on the members' desks. For the purpose of facilitating the ballot, there will be polling booths placed on either end of the Clerks' table, and a ballot box will be immediately in front of the mace, which is below the table.
I would ask that members on the left assist with the process by proceeding behind and up to the left of the table when we are ready to go, and those on the right side of the chamber should go to the right of the table. Ballots will be provided here by the Clerks-at-the-Table. Those ballots will be taken by the members, and the name of the candidate they are supporting for Speaker will be printed on the ballot and put in the ballot box.
If I could have the Sergeant-at-Arms produce the necessary equipment, we'll proceed.
Again, for the clarity of members, the standing order requires that the member's name be placed on the ballot itself. Once all hon. members have cast their ballots, I would ask if they would bear with us and return to their places. Following that the ballots will be counted, and the decision, if any, will be given to the House. Would all members please proceed to the table now for their ballots, as directed.
[10:15]
I wish to inquire whether all hon. members who wish to have indeed voted. Are there any members remaining in the chamber who have not cast a vote?
There being no indication that further votes are to be cast, I would ask the members to bear with us. In accordance with the standing order, we will retire with the ballot box and do the count as provided. We will be back as soon as possible with the decision. Would the House simply stay at ease until we are back.
The House recessed at 10:22 a.m.
The House resumed at 10:32 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Hon. members, I wish to advise the House that one candidate did receive a majority of the votes cast. That member is Emery Barnes, the member for Vancouver-Burrard.
Hon. E. Barnes took his place in the chair.
The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the House of Assembly has elected me as their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me. If in the performance of those duties I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault be imputed to me and not to the assembly whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to the Queen and country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates and access to Your Honour's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Honour the most favourable interpretation.
Hon. members, I understand that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct, and there will be a short delay.
Hon. A. Petter: Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to declare to you that he freely confides in the duty and attachment of the House of Assembly to Her Majesty's person and government, and not doubting that their respective proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, he grants, and upon all occasions will recognize and allow, their constitutional privileges.
I am commanded also to assure you that the assembly shall have ready access to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor upon all seasonable occasions, and that their proceedings, as well as your words and actions, will constantly receive from him the most favourable construction.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. Will the House please come to order, and I will read the prayer.
"Most gracious God, we humbly beseech thee to behold with thy blessing our country and the peoples of the Commonwealth. We pray especially for this province, for the Lieutenant-Governor and for the Legislative Assembly at this time assembled; that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, and religion and piety may be established among us and all generations. Amen."
F. Garden: I'm certainly pleased to see you sit in the chair this morning, hon. Speaker, after the process we just went through.
I'd like to introduce, though, a member of my constituency who is in the gallery. He's accompanied by my CA, Steve Hilbert. The gentleman's name is Charlie Webster. He's been a worker for the IWA for many years, and I'd like you all to welcome him this morning.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I think we would be remiss on this particular morning if we didn't welcome your wife, who I believe is in the gallery at this point, and those who are with her on this very significant and important day.
The Speaker: I concur. Her name is Janet, by the way.
C. Serwa: May I be one of the first to congratulate you on your new office. I know that you hold this parliament in very high esteem and that no one has superior credentials to yourself. Your personal dignity, honour and integrity are beyond question and reproach, and you are a most fit individual to sit in this very important position of Speaker. I offer you my sincerest and heartfelt congratulations.
I might just say a few words for those.... A quote is appropriate at this time. Most of you will be familiar with this quote. I say it from my perspective. "I am hurt, but I am not slain. I will lay me down and bleed awhile, and then I'll rise and fight again."
Hon. M. Harcourt: If I may say, the hon. member is certainly broadening his reading. I'm sure that the exposure to Tommy Douglas is going to show in his statements in the House from here on.
Hon. Speaker, I too would like to rise and congratulate you on the first election of the Speaker by all members of this Legislature. As somebody who has known you in the many
[ Page 9546 ]
ways that you have served our community -- going back to your work at the Grandview Community Centre and Gordon Neighbourhood House, and before that when you had an occupation that was probably as dangerous and difficult as the one you have now, when you were a member of the B.C. Lions and the Green Bay Packers -- I know that you're certainly used to the rough and tumble of combat and of the combatting of ideas that we're going to be involved in in this Legislature.
[10:45]
As the dean of the Legislature, you certainly have many years experience with all the different ruses, approaches and procedural measures that may be taken by members of this House. So your experience and your ability to deal with people in a firm but clear way is going to serve all members of this House very well. I would like to also add my congratulations to you, hon. Speaker, in the first election as Speaker by all members of this Legislature. Congratulations.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations and the opposition's congratulations on your election. I've had the great fortune of working with you for a number of years in my previous elected capacity, and I know this is an important day for you. Like others in the House, I joined in cheering for you on a number of occasions, particularly in your previous occupation. I noticed a number of sacks from you which we all enjoyed as part of your audience, and I hope that in your role as the Speaker you will not have to use similar techniques with this House. It is important for everyone to recognize the contribution you have made to your community and your constituency. I know you will continue with that sense of honour and integrity as you serve this House and this parliament.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. There being no further members seeking to make contributions, I would like you to indulge me for just a second or two of your time. I am speechless at this moment, and that's not a very auspicious start for the Speaker. But I think that's for good reason, because the very last place I ever thought I would be is in the Speaker's chair. If anybody ever ignored the rules and broke them as much as I did, I haven't seen them yet. I only picked up the rule book when I was named Deputy Speaker, so I'm fairly new with the rules.
I am fully aware of the awesome responsibility that has been bestowed upon me. I will be diligent in seeking to achieve the ideals that this institution promises for all of us. Perhaps the best thing to do at this time is reflect on the remarks presented to us by the outgoing Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon, when she quite accurately summarized what this House is all about. There's very little you can do to improve upon that statement. It's a very delicate place. It's a place where we come to try and pool our thoughts, our beliefs, our aspirations and our hopes on behalf of all of our constituents. We rarely get to see them face to face, but we know they're there; we feel them every day.
We are fortunate to have an assembly such as this where we can come together and work under a set of rules that guide us in a constructive way. So there's every reason to protect this institution. There's every reason to believe that our lives depend on it, and indeed they do. I certainly respect that, and I intend to do my best to protect that concept and those traditions, and to ensure that all members are as diligent as they can be in recognizing the fragility of this place. After listening to the debate for the past few days, I'm sure there isn't a member in this place who would not do his best to ensure that the rules, standing orders and all those things that make this place work are respected. So I think the job will be relatively easy after seeing how we've struggled with that debate.
Thank you very much, hon. members, and let's get to work.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me extend my congratulations to you, and say that I'm encouraged by your remarks this morning.
But the House will recall that on Wednesday I served notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege following this expected election if the former Speaker was not a candidate. I rise now to that matter, of which written notice has been given to the Chair under standing order 26, practice recommendation 7. I apologize for the lack of notice you have personally had, Mr. Speaker, but out of deference for our guests this afternoon, I would like to proceed at this time.
It is with great sadness and disgust that I stand here today, forced as I am to hold the government to account for its unforgivable actions with respect to the former Speaker. I believe the privileges of all members of this assembly have been badly abused through an action that constitutes a gross contempt for the House. I'm referring to the coercive pressure that was extended by the Premier to your predecessor to vacate her position.
I would remind all members of our former Speaker's words yesterday: "In return, every Speaker must be able to rely upon all hon. members to be vigilant in their support of the institution itself." She further said....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The purpose of your rising is a point of privilege. That matter is the subject of debate. I just want to caution the member that we're not in a debate at the moment; you are stating your point of privilege.
J. Weisgerber: Yes indeed, hon. Speaker.
The former Speaker went on to say: "Members' support is the only armour that comes with this unique, exposed position." Those words represent more than a dire warning from personal experience; they are also a plea to all members of this assembly to investigate the terrible affront to the office of the Speaker that was quietly administered by those who sought to force her ouster. I would remind the House that on March 1 an article in the Vancouver Sun alleged that the former Speaker had been asked by the government to step down. This allegation was repeated on several occasions in the media and was even substantiated by the Speaker's own actions. Indeed, in the same newspaper the very next day, she was quoted as saying: "Obviously I am disappointed this has come about this way" -- a reference to her reputed pending resignation. The article summarized her predicament as follows....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I think that it would be of help at this stage to remind all members of the appropriate section under which you are currently making your remarks. A brief written statement of the matter, which the member reads to the House, should be the extent to which the point of privilege can be acceptable. The member is clearly entering into the argumentative aspects of his concerns, which are not appropriate to the standing order under which you have risen. I would ask the hon. member,
[ Page 9547 ]
with respect to this rule, to conclude his remarks within the next few minutes.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, let me say that I have reviewed in some detail motions of privilege put forward on previous occasions. As we proceed, I hope you will find that my comments are consistent with the practice of this House and with the practice of presenting motions of privilege. Hon. Speaker, the article that I was referring to summarized the predicament of the Speaker as follows:
"[The Speaker] said she's disappointed about being forced out of her job. Sawicki did not criticize the government -- the independence of her office prevents her from discussing government actions, she said -- but left no doubt she is troubled about losing the position."
As I said, numerous articles, columns, editorials and TV reports reinforced this serious allegation in the period prior to her resignation yesterday. Moreover, the former Speaker confirmed in a March 2 report in the Times-Colonist that she had been asked to step down. The story reported that delicate negotiations were underway between the Premier's office and the Speaker to remove her from office.
In a March 6 article in Burnaby Now, the former Speaker repeated the assertion that she had been asked to step down. She said: "I think it's fair to confirm that there have been discussions taking place, but as a Speaker it's a very awkward time for me. I have to be honest with you...."
Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. I realize that the member is relying on the interpretative analyses of the Vancouver Sun and the Times-Colonist to buttress his remarks, which is unusual to begin with. But more importantly, hon. Speaker, as you've pointed out already, this is a matter requiring a brief statement of facts regarding the point of privilege. We are not to entertain debate. To use anecdotal evidence from newspapers to try to buttress an argument in favour of a point of privilege seems to me to be completely out of order at this time.
The Speaker: Thank you. I very much agree with what the Government House Leader is suggesting. The difficulty that the Chair has is that it's a matter that I hadn't had an opportunity to consider. The spirit of a point of privilege is something that all members should guard carefully and use when the matter really is within the rules. It is quite clear that we're entering into debate, which is an inappropriate way to stand on a point of privilege. I think the member knows that. I hope he will conclude his remarks in deference to the Chair's request.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I certainly don't want to start your new term in this office by arguing with you. I won't do that.
Let me say in conclusion that there was a tremendous amount of evidence of government interference with the Speaker, and never once did the Speaker deny that such interference was taking place. If there was no such interference, the Speaker had a clear obligation to correct the public's mistaken assumption.
I'll table my motion, regrettably without being able to complete my statement. I will include a copy of the statement I had hoped to make this morning for your consideration, hon. Speaker. It points very clearly to several factors. One is that there was indeed serious interference. Most importantly, hon. Speaker, it asks you to reflect on the evidence. If you agree with the evidence I've put forward, refer this question to the select standing committee on ethics. I believe the question that must be dealt with is one of ethics. If we can't deal with it in this Legislature, then we must be able to deal with it in committee in order to protect your position, which I believe was threatened by the actions of the government over the past few days.
Hon. G. Clark: I certainly recognize that with a fractured opposition, members will attempt to gain attention in any manner they can, but this is clearly and unequivocally not a question of privilege. The Speaker made a statement yesterday pertaining to her decision to resign. That statement is absolutely unequivocal. The House has taken some action today to elect a Speaker, which is an historic occasion. It's unfortunate that the member opposite would choose to mar that occasion with a partisan attempt to make an issue of something which is not an issue. This is not a question of privilege.
[11:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: Contrary to the words of the Government House Leader, if there ever has been a point of privilege in this House, this is it. We have discussed this issue in the House for several days. The evidence brought forward by the member who spoke first is certainly compelling; and indeed, the comments of the former Speaker herself, which indicated her reasons for feeling the need to leave the chair, are compelling. I think that this issue, if any, certainly must be sent to a legislative select standing committee on ethics in order to delve into it and find out what really took place -- what those delicate negotiations and intimidations were -- so that the next Speaker who sits in that chair, or you, hon. Speaker, never again feels threatened by those types of partisan intimidation tactics that besmirch all in this House.
The Speaker: The Chair will endeavour to review the motion put forward.
The hon. member for Mission-Kent rises on a point of order?
D. Streifel: No, hon. Speaker. I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: I've just noticed some visitors in the gallery who are very good friends and neighbours of mine: Claire and Harold Pattern. I bid the House do make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave of the House to move a motion, seconded by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, to appoint a Deputy Speaker for this session of the Legislative Assembly.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I move, seconded by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, that Mr. Dale Lovick, member for Nanaimo electoral district, be appointed Deputy Speaker for this session of the Legislative Assembly.
Motion approved.
[ Page 9548 ]
(continued)
A. Warnke: Your Honour, since I have the opportunity of being the first to speak in normal debate after you being elected Speaker, may I join with others in extending my congratulations to you for being elected. I certainly intend to extend support to you in your new responsibilities.
In response to the throne speech today, I propose to cover a few areas. Firstly, I have to admit that I'm compelled to express a brief review and critique of some of the ideas concerning the restructuring of parliament; secondly, I want to address some matters concerning government policies on aboriginal issues; and thirdly, I also want to express some sentiments about the impact of the throne speech on my own community of Steveston and South Richmond. That's quite a tall order first thing in the morning, but I want to proceed seriatim on those issues.
On the first matter with regard to responding to some sentiments expressed in this place about the restructuring of parliament and political reform, I think, to a certain extent, that some of the debate that has taken place on your responsibilities, Your Honour, perhaps reflects that we are entering -- at least intellectually and philosophically -- a very difficult era. When we change institutions we embark on a process or path that might not take us where we really desire to go. I guess I was provoked somewhat, especially by my colleague in my own caucus, the member for Delta South, who in his response to the throne speech mentioned a few items which, I have to admit at the outset, I could not agree with. But nonetheless, I think it reflects some of the difficulty we have in talking about political reform. In dealing with some of the aspects of political reform, I want to make it clear, Your Honour, that I intend to extend a courtesy to my colleagues, or perhaps a disclaimer: what I want to comment on are my own personal views and certainly not intended to represent the party of the official opposition.
Yet I do feel that these views must be expressed, to advance an honest debate about where parliamentary institutions are going. I think it's not only this Legislature; I'm getting a strong sense, as I examine some of the issues and points raised in other legislatures, and indeed internationally, that we're on a path of change that I believe has tremendous possibilities of improving the institutions of government. Yet at the same time, if mishandled and not carefully treated, the consequences of some of the changes we want to initiate could have quite the opposite, adverse effect on what is truly parliamentary democracy and representative government.
I listened to the comments from the member for Port Coquitlam yesterday with regard to the debate concerning the seat of the Speaker -- laying aside the actual vote, but the content of what the member was putting forward.... Actually, I thought the member made a pretty strong point that is worth recognizing: if we are not careful of the reasons and motivations for initiating change -- if we initiate change in parliamentary institutions for the wrong reason -- we might well be on the road to adopting something akin to a congressional or maybe republican kind of system. That member did not explain in detail, because I believe the member simply did not have the time to elaborate on that. But if you like, Your Honour, I would like to take the courtesy of elaborating on his behalf. I think he has a very strong point; in fact, it was a point I made in our earlier discussion about the Speaker. I recognize I'm talking about the throne speech, hon. Speaker, but I'm talking about the changes of institutions, some of which will be introduced perhaps in the legislation of this government this session.
A point I had made in our debate is that perhaps one implication of changing the way we elect a Speaker might introduce partisanship, akin to the American style of government, where the Speaker of the House of Representatives is clearly partisan. Maybe that's desirable, hon. Speaker, but the implication is possible. Hence we have to be very careful about what we do in this place. I would remind all legislatures, including the national Parliament, to be very careful as to how change is to be introduced. I could have some fun with my colleague from Delta South. Some of his comments on remuneration puzzled me extremely. It reinforces the fact that perhaps we need an objective body to take an arm's-length look at the salaries and benefits and all the rest of it that we receive as MLAs. I know full well that I'm not very flush. At any rate, we won't belabour that one.
It's not the first time that a member has made comments about reducing the number of MLAs. Perhaps there is a positive feature to that, but a negative feature is that in an age where we need to elaborate and extend the relationship between the elected representative and the constituents, I would find it very odd to move in a direction where we would essentially reduce, in terms of numbers, the relationship between the MLA and the constituents. There's a strong argument that considering there were only 55 members in the 1950s and the 1960s, and there was a tremendous population growth in our province, the gradual increase in the number of MLAs in the last 20 years is certainly warranted.
But in general, I'm also referring to some of the ideas put forward by members of this House who claim to be representatives of the so-called B.C. Reform Party. Not only are they within their rights, they are also contributing their views on what changes are needed. Again, some of the changes, such as recall and referendum, are perhaps contributions to parliamentary democracy. It's very clear that in October 1991, people in all constituencies expressed a desire for a mechanism to hold their representatives accountable. As a matter of fact, if a particular representative is off the track, they want to recall them in some form.
I would suggest it is possible that before the year is out, we will have some legislation instituted where recall will be available to the people. That is fine, but we have to be very careful of the implications of recall and of referendum. Here is where a disclaimer is applicable, I think. I would even go so far as to suggest that members -- whether they oppose or favour them -- think very carefully about what happens to this place when we advocate free votes and the suspension of confidence votes. What happens when we institute fixed terms, budget dates and election dates? These may be positive innovations, but at the same time we have to be very careful that what we institute or change in this place does not have an undesirable and perhaps profound effect.
Let me point out some of the potential problems and drawbacks of some of the concepts that are being advocated in the name of the restructuring of parliament and reform. What happens when one institutes free votes? Free votes are often advocated as a means of allowing representatives to reflect their constituencies, and there's some truth to that. The example that is often pointed out is the American case where the members of the House of Representatives can reflect their own constituencies. I am and have been a thorough student of American government and have taught American government, and as a close observer of American politics I've noticed that party discipline is just as strong in the
[ Page 9549 ]
American Congress as it is anywhere. If you think you have some real politics in this place, I guarantee that in the American Congress you have some real doozies.
[11:15]
So I'm not sure that the high-mindedness of putting forward free votes is necessarily going to get away from party discipline. Party discipline is still part and parcel of democratic government and what happens in the legislative chamber. But the advocacy of free votes is often tied with the suspension of the vote of confidence. I have a warning for members: the vote of confidence is the one real tool of power and authority that the Legislature has against an executive that has any inclination towards tyranny. Free votes can strengthen the power of the executive -- not strengthen the legislators, but strengthen the power of the executive at the expense of legislators.
Take a look at the average American Congressman. On occasion they can vote against party policy, because the government is not at stake; the government does not fall in that system. As a close observer of American government, I know that there are many representatives who still toe the party line if they want to get anywhere. If they want to advance the interests of their constituency, they make trade-offs and deals. Only rarely will a Congressman go against party policy. And if it's often enough, severe discipline of the party can be exercised, even in a congressional system.
I am afraid that advocating free votes can extend the power of the executive. All we need do in this province is look at the case of Premier Vander Zalm. One way to force the resignation of someone in an executive -- of a Premier -- whom one does not have confidence in is to withdraw that confidence in this chamber. But if free votes are extended to all pieces of legislation -- the throne speech, the budget speech and perhaps one other area -- if no motions of confidence can be attached to voting, then it strengthens the hand of the executive. I just want to remind hon. members of that.
I could also say that a lot of what is being advocated in terms of reform may not actually increase parliamentary democracy or enhance representative government. It certainly does not enhance the role of the individual legislator. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to elaborate in detail, but many of these principles -- fixed terms, fixed election dates -- have disadvantages as well as advantages. The executive can exercise pocket vetoes when sessions have a fixed opening and closing date.
This may be one of the few times that I will be able to speak on this subject. Considering the fact that the government has expressed its intention to bring forth legislation in this session on recall and referendum and perhaps some others -- as we've seen in the case of the election of the Speaker -- I want to warn all hon. members here to take a look at the legislation being proposed. Examine it very carefully, and try to anticipate the worst possible consequences.
Those are some of my comments. I hope I will have the opportunity at some other point this session to warn against what I call creeping republicanism in Canada, and especially in this province. I must admit that I did see it the other day in the speech in response to the throne speech by the member for Peace River South. I can understand that his is the zeal of a reformed sinner, but at the same time I want to caution that member and others throughout this chamber that there are some very negative disadvantages and implications for what we advocate.
I did want to raise a second point in response to the throne speech. It concerns the delicate aboriginal issues in this province. We have to be very careful. At the outset I want to express one point of view that is not often picked up by the press or appreciated by the public. I don't blame the press or the public; these are very difficult points to communicate. Regardless of our views and our various interests, the fact is that when we take a look at native rights from a legal point of view, the native people of this province have asserted that they do have some form of sovereignty and entitlement to the land that had been at their disposal for thousands of years.
That is in sharp contrast to the American experience. The treaties drawn up in the history of the United States, especially during the nineteenth century, make it crystal-clear that their government embarked unabashedly on a policy of conquest. One upside is that at least the Canadian government did not, in my view, move in the direction of a deliberate conquest of the aboriginal people. Thank goodness for that. As a result, we have had a much different temperament and a much different approach in terms of institutionalized violence in our society. But we have a very awkward situation.
Many native communities and their representatives speaking through their chiefs have expressed that they don't have anything in terms of a treaty. In fact, whenever treaties have been drawn up they have reinforced their sovereignty and ownership of their land. This was made very clear to me by the chief of the Six Nations reserve in Brantford, whom I had an extended talk with late last year. I went through the legal documents, as he encouraged me to do. The chief pointed out that what they did in terms of developing a treaty with the national government did not acknowledge in the slightest that they were subservient to the national government. They and the British Crown were allies in terms of dealing with the revolt of 1776 and all other conflicts with the Americans since then, including the War of 1812. The point was emphasized -- and in the legal context, you might say reinforced -- that the aboriginal communities, the Iroquois, were in alliance with the national government. That puts things in an entirely different context than to say that somehow here is Canada, and automatically we must assume that all peoples are Canadians.
When I do talk to them, I find that the chiefs are highly responsible. They understand reality. There are the legal interpretations that they can put forward about where the aboriginal people have come from and where the aboriginal community is, legally, in relation to this province and the national government. But they are realistic. They are also realistic in suggesting that they are not out after people's land. That's a point that has to be reinforced. I have talked to many people in Terrace and Smithers, as well as in the eastern parts of our province. There is quite rightly some concern expressed by the non-aboriginal community about what the implications of a treaty are: "What sort of implications does it have for me? Does it mean that I have to move off my land? Do I have to forfeit my property?" These are real concerns. I'm very impressed by the fact that the chief said: "We understand that, we know that, and therefore we have no interest in suspending property rights that were extended to the non-aboriginal community."
We are in an awkward era, I suppose. I'm rather optimistic that if we understand the delicacy of the legal and political problems before us, we have every prospect of resolving the several issues out there. Those issues are: land claims settlement, aboriginal self-government, aboriginal economic self-sufficiency, aboriginal justice and the administration of those programs. These are very delicate issues that I think have the prospect of being resolved.
[ Page 9550 ]
Nonetheless, we have to recognize that we are in a very sensitive era in which to resolve them.
On that note, the official opposition recognizes a number of features of some issues I've just mentioned: the indigenous right to self-government, the need to settle claims in a fair, efficient and timely manner, and the need to consult and establish an acceptable process for analyzing economic and social costs of settlements. I will be taking a careful and detailed look at what the government proposes on this.
Hon. Speaker, I notice that time is proceeding very rapidly, and I do want to make some comments. I would be remiss if I did not at least briefly discuss the implication for my community of Richmond-Steveston of legislation proposed in the throne speech. I'll pick one aspect of it.
The people of Steveston and Richmond are very concerned about their families, their children and the safety of their community. It is an integral part of our community that the government encourage working families in every possible way. These families work very hard for, as it turns out, less real money and pay more taxes to governments. This has been expressed in many ways.
[11:30]
My community wants to promote the idea that what we need is good jobs, good careers and a growing economy. We need to reinforce a world-class education system, which we're been noted for in the past, at all levels: elementary, secondary and post-secondary. We have a fine, tremendous system in this province, and we want that enhanced. We want affordable health care, and we want safe streets and safe communities. We want to encourage the government to promote policies that essentially enhance the role of the family in our communities, with a special emphasis on children. If we resolve some of the problems facing our young people today, then we go a long way toward alleviating a lot of our problems.
My caucus and I have examined the throne speech, and we've concluded that we have to put forward an amendment. I have placed amendment 35, under proposed amendments on notice, on the order paper. I move, seconded by my hon. colleague from Vancouver-Langara, that "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session," be amended by adding the following:
"...but this assembly regrets that 30 months after the election of this government, the province continues to operate without any economic plan, raising taxes, hiding taxes and increasing our debt as the key to our future, subsequently failing to protect working families and failing to provide long-term work opportunities for the citizens of British Columbia; and that this government continues to assault the education system in this province, thereby jeopardizing the future of our children; and furthermore, regrets that the Speech from the Throne provides only platitudes to the taxpayers of the province, calling on them to be courageous in their sacrifice while this government steadfastly refuses to take up the same challenge that it offered to taxpayers."
I propose this amendment in my name, and I wish to speak further on it.
As I reflect on some of the key economic problems facing this province -- we will hear more of that later in the day, and I hope I will have the opportunity to speak further on that -- there is no clear strategy as to the economic direction of this province. On two previous occasions when I addressed the budgets of this province, I noted in detail that we have to focus more attention on economic growth and development. We need to focus on the basic research and development necessary to stimulate the economy. The British Columbia economy has performed well compared well with the other provinces, but there is still a problem in that when one takes apart and analyzes the economy of British Columbia, it has been stimulated by investment from overseas, particularly by the Hong Kong markets. This was done primarily during the 1980s and early 1990s, and there has been some continuation of that. But there has also been a slowdown. I believe that our economic performance in this province has been a result of what I would call an artificial injection of capital, due to political circumstances elsewhere on this globe that have contributed to the British Columbia economy. But if we take that factor away and begin to look at the anatomy underneath it, the basic elements of the British Columbia economy, we find that there are some very severe problems. You do not have to go very far to see how those problems are expressed in different parts of this province. In many plazas in smaller communities and cities around this province, one sees that businesses have folded, and other businesses are not coming in to replace those empty rooms and stores.
We do see some evidence of an economic slowdown. I believe the reason for that -- as I have warned this government for the last two years -- is that there is no clear direction or strategy regarding where we must go in this province. My view that the province continues to operate without any economic plan, which seems to be the situation now, is something I have warned about during the last two years. Hence I have to mention it in this motion.
Regardless of what Ministers of Finance have said -- and there have been two -- about being able to hold taxes and the debt and about actually having a declining debt, the fact is that on close examination, all of it is flimflam. They raise taxes by hiding them, and they have increased our debt. Frankly, I'm not impressed when the debt is somehow shifted to a Crown corporation. In the last analysis, the B.C. taxpayer pays for any financial problems that exist in the government or its Crown corporations.
This is a key to our future. How we manage and deal with the revenues and expenditures of government is going to be critical for our future. I do not see any clear direction or evidence that the government is on the right track here. As a result, I'm not impressed with the government's ability to protect working families. It has failed to provide long-term work opportunities for the citizens of British Columbia. Hiring a few pollsters or whatever, as if that somehow increases the statistics on job growth, is not impressive.
Take a look at our education system. I'm not impressed with the direction we've been going in the last two years to improve the education system from K to 12. I am certainly not impressed with the direction of this government in dealing with post-secondary education. I'm not impressed with the government's response to providing safe schools. They are not providing the kind of environment that really promotes safety in our schools and communities. I think the reason is that they have the premise wrong. If the government wants to engage in new thinking, which I think will be most important for the future of our province, we have to start from a different premise. The premise that I would advocate -- actually I'm borrowing the idea from my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara -- is that we need to do begin with the child. We really do have to promote something like a child care network, including child care professionals. When we focus on education and providing a safe environment in our schools, the focus is on
[ Page 9551 ]
children. The focus is on children in terms of policing and safety. I'm appalled at the direction we're taking in this country, one that actually interferes with the safety of children and the way they are brought up in our society.
J. Beattie: Give us an example.
A. Warnke: The hon. member asks for an example. There are plenty of examples in my own community of Richmond of schoolchildren being intimidated in their school environment, and I'm sure it exists in his own community as well. We know that. All one has to do is read the newspaper. If that member would only read the newspaper from time to time, perhaps he would have just a little more sympathy for what is actually occurring in our schools and in our communities. Shame, hon. member!
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members know that there is no participating in debate from their seats.
A. Warnke: In the short time I have left, I really want to see the government rethink its position on the economy and on the direction it's going in education and in dealing with children and families. It should try to focus on how we can improve the position of working families in our society. As a warning to the government, I say that this is the direction they must go. If they do go in the right direction and establish their priorities in terms of promoting economic growth and development, and if they say that this is where we're going with regard to the future of education, and if they provide for a sound environment, that government will be re-elected. But frankly I doubt it.
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to address you in the chair today as the new Speaker of our assembly. This is an historic day for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. It's a day of firsts among many firsts.
For the first time in the history of this House, we had a procedure today whereby the Chair, the presiding officer of our House, was elected by all members of this assembly. That's a reform whose time was long overdue. This is a good day for British Columbia and a good day for this assembly. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you upon taking the chair as the very first Speaker of this assembly to do so with this reform in place.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also congratulate you as the dean of the Legislature, as the longest-serving member of this House. It's most appropriate that you should be taking the chair, and I wish you well with the challenges ahead, and they will be many, I'm sure. I know you'll have the full cooperation of members of this House for the remainder of the life of this parliament.
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances under which you were elected -- the reform and procedure by which you were elected -- is something I think we can all support. Unfortunately, other circumstances outside this chamber, in terms of rumours and suggestions of executive interference in the legislative domain, cast a shadow on all of us as legislators. I know that the member for Peace River South has raised a question of privilege on that, on which you are yet to rule. If you should decide that there is a prima facie case of privilege and if that matter is referred to a committee of this House, as perhaps it should be, then that matter will be explored and investigated. I'll just leave that matter and not refer to it anymore, because I think that's something that should be dealt with at another time and place; and we've had a very broad-ranging debate on that over the last couple of days.
Mr. Speaker, another aspect of the circumstances by which you come to the Chair that I think also needs to be commented upon, which is equally deplorable, is the behaviour of the official opposition in the House. The Liberal caucus wants to have it both ways. They want to filibuster the government's motion for bringing in a reform; they want to filibuster that for two or three days, taking valuable time away from this House; they want to extend that debate into the Address in Reply, when our constituents want to hear how we feel about the throne speech. When it came to a vote on the motion, a motion for reforming the procedure of this House, they voted against it.
[11:45]
I'm not sure they recognized what they were doing when they voted on that, because they tried to say they were voting against something else, not the motion that we were dealing with at the time. So I think they were confused and misled. But having said that, once the House adopted the new procedure for the democratic election of the Speaker of this assembly, what did they do? I think this is quite revealing.
First of all, they did participate in that process; we know that, because none of their names were on the ballot. Each of them participated to the extent that they removed their names from the ballot so they would not be candidates for the position. So they did participate halfway. But when it came to the procedure this morning in this assembly....
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston rises on a point of order.
A. Warnke: I'm listening to the member's comments with some interest, since he is a student of government. But the fact is, hon. Speaker, that under the standing orders I've put forward an amendment. I believe that the hon. member should be speaking to the amendment, rather than straying way off-topic as he is doing.
J. Beattie: I listened with great intent to the member for Richmond-Steveston's speech regarding the throne speech, and I think the House gave him latitude that allowed him to speak about many different reforms which actually were quite separate from the issue of the throne speech. I think the hon. member, having had the latitude of the House, should give the member the same latitude.
The Speaker: The points of order are well taken. However, I think it's customary in this House to permit considerable latitude in throne speech debate, and in view of the fact that in second reading of bills we normally allow a fair amount of latitude.... This is a situation where I think it would be well if the speaker would keep in mind that there is an amendment on the throne speech, and, as best he can, he should try and relate to that.
D. Mitchell: I recognize full well I'm speaking on the amendment moved by the official opposition. My friend the member for Richmond-Steveston demonstrates a sensitivity on this issue which is quite understandable, a sensitivity which reflects the shame he and his colleagues must be experiencing for their behaviour this morning. Quite frankly, it was unacceptable and immature behaviour. They were led
[ Page 9552 ]
astray on this and should not have behaved as a bloc. I know there are members of that caucus who would have preferred to have been here for the historic occasion this morning, whereby we elected our Speaker in a democratic fashion for the first time in the history of this assembly. They talk about free votes. They want to have it both ways, and they can't. They can't pretend to defend the rights of parliament or to be concerned about the rights of this assembly in a filibuster that lasts for two and a half or three days, and then boycott the House when it comes time to defend this institution by standing in their place, voting in this assembly, showing confidence in the new presiding officer and participating in the process. How would any member of this House be able to justify that behaviour to constituents, when our constituents send us here to do a job on their behalf? How can we justify boycotting the proceedings of this assembly in a fit of pique, of immaturity....
J. Beattie: A huff.
D. Mitchell: In a huff, as the member opposite says. It's deplorable behaviour. It says to constituents that if you don't like the election, the candidates or the circumstances in which the election takes place, then don't vote. They're urging constituents not to vote if they don't like the process, if they're upset or if they have a little temper tantrum that they wish to throw. I don't think that is a responsible position for any elected representative in British Columbia to take. It shows not only contempt for constituents but also gross contempt for this House and the proceedings of this assembly. If those members who have chosen now to come back into the House....
A. Warnke: What about the government side?
D. Mitchell: The member for Richmond-Steveston knows what I'm referring to. I can understand why he's embarrassed. The contempt that they've shown for the House....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair would love to not intervene during debate, but clearly we are showing considerable disrespect when a member has the floor and is speaking, and we begin to interject from our seats with such energetic effort. I think that we should consider the difficulty we're going to have if we allow this trend to continue. Thank you for your attention. Let's try to cooperate. The hon. member continues.
D. Mitchell: The circumstances have been difficult. We want to get off to a good start with our new presiding officer. If in fact there was interference on the part of the executive in the legislative branch, it has been exposed. The role of the opposition in the legislative process is very clear: to shine the flashlight of public scrutiny into the shadows of this assembly and into the activities of government, and to expose any wrongdoing if we see it. Once that's done, our responsibility is to get on with our job, to represent our constituents and to stand in this assembly and speak on behalf of our constituents -- not to boycott the proceedings of the assembly. That's the point I wish to make. I think the members of the Liberal caucus, the official opposition, should be quite embarrassed by their behaviour this morning, because it does not augur well for a group that wishes to be the alternative government in this province.
Hon. Speaker, I would like to say that there are a number of other firsts surrounding this throne speech and the amendment to the throne speech that has been presented today. It's going to be difficult to address them all in the time remaining this morning. I would like to congratulate the two new members of this assembly who are both here for the first time: the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the new Leader of the Official Opposition, and the member for Matsqui. We look forward to their contribution to the proceedings of this assembly. We hope that they will not be led astray, as they were this morning, by a caucus that left in a huff and did not want to participate. We hope that they will have some positive impact on that group and will understand what the proceedings of this assembly are all about, so that they don't get so easily confused that they think something other than doing the people's business is happening in here. We wish those two new members well, and we hope they can exert some sanity on a caucus that really does not understand the very basic procedures of this assembly.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the members of the governing party in this House are showing more support for me this morning than I'm accustomed to.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: My caucus is absolutely unanimous on the position that I'm about to espouse.
Mr. Speaker, something else is happening for the first time in this House, and I would like to refer to it. On the opposition side there is a new alignment in the seating plan of the House. I think it's worth commenting on. For the very first time since party politics were introduced in 1903, we have nine members in this assembly who, as far as the House is concerned, are sitting as independents. While some of them may cloak themselves in the names or titles of political parties, there are nine. We can't predict for the Government House Leader how long this will last. Who knows? It might be a new trend. I'm pleased to be part of the fastest-growing political movement in the province today, and that's the independents. Who knows if it's a trend that will continue? But the truth is that, in reality, all 75 members in this assembly are independents and are here to speak first and foremost on behalf of their constituents. They don't really need a party label. When we enter this chamber we should leave our party labels behind and simply seek to do the will of our constituents and speak out on their behalf. We should stand up here in the Legislature on the issues and not simply succumb to the party whip, the party line or the leader's bidding. We should be here to represent our constituents first. That's why the behaviour of the Liberal opposition was so deplorable today. They did not come here to do their job. They skulked in afterwards, silently and embarrassingly, and hung their heads in shame. We are all independents. Formally, who knows? There may be more independents before the session ends, maybe not. Perhaps other groups and alignments will emerge. If I had one wish it would be that all members of the caucuses represented in this assembly could have, during the course of their experience in this parliament, a paid sabbatical from their caucuses so that they could serve for at least one session of this Legislature as an independent -- not as a hyphenated independent, but as an independent in this House. That would allow them to look at the proceedings in this chamber with fresh eyes. I can tell you that it has certainly changed
[ Page 9553 ]
my perspective. It has forced me, in a much more disciplined manner, to represent my constituents first, not a party line, not a party label, not a party whip. Before I continue this debate on another occasion, my one wish would be that all members of this House embrace the spirit of independence and represent their constituents first. They should do the job that they were sent here to do and are paid to do on behalf of their constituents.
I have much more to say on the Speech from the Throne and the amendment. Recognizing, however, that it's getting close to the hour of adjournment and that today is an important day, as we are going to be receiving the budget this afternoon, I beg leave to adjourn this debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: Let me advise all members that the Legislature will be sitting tomorrow.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]