[ Page 9381 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

The Speaker: Members have heard the motion. I recognize the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I rise to speak to the motion to recess. Much that has happened in the current session, and particularly in the past few days, has given rise to enormous frustration on the opposition benches. Perhaps it has given rise to some frustration on government benches as well. But I want to speak for a brief time on some of those issues. I want to speak about some of the issues that have brought us to where we are today, and perhaps talk about some of the ways in which we might try to improve the situation that we find ourselves in.

Hon. Speaker, the opposition -- and I think that you would acknowledge this and, hopefully, the government would acknowledge this as well -- has tried to be efficient, productive and constructive in its approach, both to estimates and to the progress of bills through the Legislature in the current session. To this date, I have never heard any suggestions from the government side that we have unnecessarily delayed the progress of any bills, nor have we unduly lengthened any estimates. I certainly haven't heard any suggestions of that. The Labour minister is suggesting at this moment that there may be, but obviously it's a belated observation. It's not one that I have heard previously. We have tried to be efficient, productive and constructive. We have tried to cooperate with the government in terms of the conduct of the people's business in this Legislature. I have to say that we've received precious little reward for that disposition.

A couple of weeks ago the government conveyed their very powerful interest and concern that estimates be concluded by the end of June. The issue was one which we didn't necessarily disagree with. The government was very much concerned that they should have the estimates completed by the end of June in order to avoid the necessity of an interim supply debate. We did our best to assist them to achieve that objective. We certainly geared our time and our efforts to cooperate to achieve that objective. The estimates that were conducted were completed in an efficient and thorough fashion, and I think that we were certainly satisfied with the progress of things through the Legislature. Perhaps the government was as well.

Regrettably, all of that changed, I guess, close to two weeks ago now, when the government introduced Bill 26.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I would like to. . . . I hesitate to interrupt. Would you take your seat for just a moment? I draw your attention to the nature of the debate on motions to adjourn, and I refer you to the top of page 90. The debate on this motion is strictly limited to arguments pro and con the suggested sitting time or date, not the substance of previous debates. It's strictly on the suggested sitting time or the date. I draw that to your attention.

[6:00]

I think that the issue is fairly typical of the dysfunctional character of this Legislature. We seem to have a good deal of problems between the government and the opposition in terms of sorting out our priorities and even cooperating at a minimal level to achieving that. I think it's important that some of those concerns around the recess of the House at this point now be debated.

I don't think many people would debate or dispute the rancorous or highly partisan character of this assembly. I guess that character might be an object of amusement were it not such a serious contributor to what is frequently referred to as a democratic deficit, or people's sense that this House is not expressing their views and feelings. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with our legislative institutions in this country, particularly in this province. I think the dysfunctional character we struggle to deal with has been reflected in recent debates and perhaps in the current debate as well. I think it's important to understand why we need to be here, debating whether we should recess until 6:35. It's our view that we should not be recessing to 6:35, because there's urgent business that needs to be done here and we want to state our views on that.

One of the consequences of the dysfunctional Legislature we serve in is that as legislators we are not always able to give proper voice to the concerns and interests of our constituents. I think a few examples of a dysfunctional House, including our periodic late-night sittings and so on, would be as follows. I think it starts right at the beginning of our legislative year: unlike the federal Parliament and, I suspect, most provincial parliaments, as well, we never even have any idea of when our legislative session will begin. If we're lucky, we may get a few days' notice from the Premier that the House is going to be sitting. Lately, it has been late March when we have finally sat down after several months away from this place to deal again with the people's business. Were it not for the obligation of the government to deliver a budget by the end of March, we would have absolutely no clue as to when this House is going to sit.

It's symptomatic of the dysfunctional relationships we have in this place and of the immaturity of the House, as well, that we've been unable to agree even on a legislative calendar, on when we're going to start, what we're going to do, when we're going to do it and when we're going to finish. Those things are all very fundamental to the opposition and the government doing the people's business in a proper, efficient, constructive and productive manner. But unfortunately, we haven't come to that. As a consequence, we all kind of sit on pins and needles through the month of March waiting to hear if the government's going to call us back in early March, mid-March or some point very late in March. That's an unfortunate situation, and again I think it's symptomatic of the problems we're having here in the House today and recently around issues like this.

As well, we have to note that the opposition frequently has no idea from day to day or from week to week what the

[ Page 9382 ]

As it turned out, it was Bill 22, a bill around the reform of the Mental Health Act. Obviously that is a very important bill and, in some people's minds, it was a contentious bill as well. It wasn't a contentious bill in this Legislature. I think that there was in fact quite a lot of agreement around what was intended in the bill, and the opposition indeed supported Bill 22. The point I'm making here -- I think it's an important one and needs to be made -- is this: a bill like Bill 22 should never make its way through the Legislature without the opposition knowing that it's coming and having a full opportunity to prepare for it.

As it turned out, the two speakers on the opposition side, the Health critic and the Education critic, were fortunately in the Legislature for the debate and, I know, spoke very thoroughly and capably to the bill. It's most unfortunate that something of the magnitude and importance of Bill 22 might have not received that kind of attention, given that there was absolutely no notice that second reading of that bill was about to take place.

That perhaps is an exceptional situation, but regrettably, it is not unique. Again, we may go from day to day not knowing whose estimates are going to be dealt with. We may go from day to day not knowing what the order of bills is going to be. I think it is, sadly, a reflection of the dysfunctional character of this House. It's a sad comment on the total lack of cooperation that frequently appears between government and opposition in this chamber. Somehow, I think we need to change that.

The situation we have is not a good one in terms of members of this Legislature speaking on issues of importance to their constituents. It's important business that we conduct in this chamber, and I think it's absolutely critical that the business conducted have a more businesslike character than has frequently been the case, as a result of this very dysfunctional relationship we have in the House. That's one concern -- that as we go through the session, we don't know from day to day or week to week what the agenda is going to be. The consequence of that is that sometimes we are not able to give the thorough and sober consideration of issues that we might otherwise. I think we can do better in that regard.

Another sources of concern, aggravation and frustration for the opposition -- again, reflected in this current debate around whether to recess until 6:35 -- is that we frequently have no idea from day to day how late we may be sitting into the night. It may be 8 p.m.; it may be 10 p.m.; it may be 3 a.m.; it may be all night. We don't know from day to day what the government has in mind for us in terms of sitting times. For example, when we were moving along with estimates earlier in the month, the government decided at one point, notwithstanding the fact that the opposition had been very responsible in terms of the time it had devoted to the various estimates that had occurred in this chamber and in what we refer to as the little House. . . . Notwithstanding that, the government decided without notice one day that we were going to go to night sittings.

One would think that in a mature, cooperative environment, the government would say to the opposition: "We're very concerned about the pace of estimates. We really think it's important to have the estimates completed by June. We think, as a consequence of that, that we may need to go into evening or night sittings." But no, that's not what happens here. We are simply in the Legislature, and the characteristic or typical motion to adjourn at 6 p.m. is put out there and is defeated by the government. That's the way the government conveys to us that they've decided to go to night sittings -- no advice, no notification. We simply find out that we're going to be sitting nights one day because the government refuses to pass the customary motion to adjourn. What are we to make of that? Is that to be an example to us, the opposition, of their idea of cooperation? Is that to be their idea of how we should reward the opposition for behaving in a responsible and efficient manner in the conduct of business in this House? I don't think so. I think that's the government's way of saying: "Oh no. We're going to dictate what happens in this House. We're not going to cooperate with you. We're not going to deal with these issues in a mature and responsible fashion. We're simply going to surprise you one day with the fact that we're going into night sittings. We don't care what you think. You're going to do what we want, and we don't care." This debate right now is an example of the frustration we have.

I see the member for Skeena is pacing like an expectant father at the back. It's a difficult time for him. If he's waiting for a baby to appear here, he's going to be waiting for a while, because I've got lots more to say. He might as well take a chair and relax.

An Hon. Member: Get a ham sandwich.

G. Abbott: Get a ham sandwich, if you like. Sit back, kick back and have a cool one.

[6:15]

C. Clark: It's pretty basic.

G. Abbott: It is pretty basic, as somebody said. It is basically polite to do something like that, but I guess we don't even merit that small level of politeness.

I think there are some other symptoms of the dysfunctional character of this place. I think they might as well be

[ Page 9383 ]

It's surprising, perhaps, that the B.C. Legislature has come to the point it has in the 1990s of being a very partisan, very rancorous, very divisive House. It's surprising in that I don't think people appreciate that it hasn't always been that way. For whatever reasons, in recent decades this House has become increasingly partisan, increasingly rancorous, increasingly dysfunctional. I think that's unfortunate, because it hasn't always been so. There are some very good examples of how this House could work better with only a minimum of cooperation and goodwill on all sides.

Remarkably, prior to 1903 there weren't even party lines in this Legislature. People might be elected as independents or as Liberals or Conservatives. Despite that, cabinets were not formed on partisan lines. Regrettably, what we see now in the nineties is that every relationship in this Legislature is partisan in nature. There is nothing left of the non-partisan sentiments of the past.

I want to talk just briefly -- I know my time may be running short, hon. Speaker -- about this Legislature in a different time and how it worked and about how we in this Legislature in 1998 could learn from the past. I know that people may think that we are the embodiment of perfection. I know that the member for Skeena regards himself as the embodiment of perfection, and perhaps he regards the current situation as the embodiment of perfection as well. But I don't think so. I think that we could do. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Did you say Viagra Falls or Niagara Falls?

An Hon. Member: He hasn't been to either.

G. Abbott: He hasn't been to either. I'm sorry.

There are some very good examples, I think, of how this Legislature could operate better. I just want to note one example. That was the Legislature between 1924 and 1928. In contrast to today, there was a small Liberal majority government, but the conduct of the business of the House. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I see the Minister of Human Resources making one of her typical contributions. If you'd just be patient, I'd be glad to explain to your satisfaction how this all meshes.

The government between '24 and '28 -- a very bare majority government -- operated very differently than this House does. I want to talk about some of the ways in which it operated differently, because I think this may provide some lessons and perhaps some keys as to how this institution could operate better in the future. I do think that we need, both on the government side and on the opposition side, to look at ways in which we can improve relationships in this chamber, ways in which we can conduct the people's business better in this chamber. So I want to talk a little bit about 1924 to 1928, because there are some very good and lively examples of how things worked better back then.

Here are some examples I picked up in my look at that particular period. The Liberal Attorney General of the day seconded a Conservative resolution to use the lash on "dope peddlers." Both Labour members also concurred. It was kind of a multiparty resolution to deal with "dope peddlers." Now, in the context of the nineties this may not seem a particularly enlightened motion. Nevertheless, it was an example of where the two dominant parties of the time, the Liberals and Conservatives, moved and seconded a resolution in the House, and in fact it won the support of the third party as well.

There's an example of a Liberal member opposing his government's bill on timber royalties, while some of the Conservative members in the House supported the same government bill. In other words, there was cross-party voting, which one would rarely, if ever, find in a legislature in the nineties.

The Premier and his Attorney General parted company on a private member's bill on the sale of beer. In fact, both major parties of the day split on the issue. There's another example where most cabinet members were in the minority in opposing a bipartisan bill on racial and religious dissension. The cabinet, unlike cabinets in the present day, was not bound as rigorously by caucus and cabinet solidarity as they are today.

There's another example where a resolution supporting a national pension plan was moved by a Labour MLA, seconded by the Liberal Provincial Secretary and carried unanimously. Again, it's another example of bipartisan or multipartisan cooperation in the Legislative Assembly -- something which, regrettably, we may never see again. Certainly we won't see it in the current context.

Another example is when the Attorney General was forced to withdraw amendments to the Vancouver Incorporation Act after criticism in the House from Vancouver Liberals. Again, it is a good example of members of this Legislative Assembly speaking out on behalf of their constituency and their region, quite apart from the fact that a government bill was being debated in the chamber.

The Premier -- the Premier of the day was John Oliver -- supported a Conservative proposal on absentee voting. Again, it's something that one would not expect to find in the context of the 1990s. A Liberal private member's bill on minimum wage and town planning passed without any opposition and was unanimously supported in the House. A Labour member's bill on the secret ballot enjoyed sufficient support from both major parties to allow passage.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Well, obviously you're not listening closely enough, then.

An Hon. Member: It's irrelevant.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry that you feel that way, but it's entirely relevant, and if you gave it a few moments of thought, you'd see why.

The character of this House has been shaped in a regrettable way in recent decades and, I think in particular, in an unfortunate direction in recent years. We have gone from a legislature such as I'm talking about, back in the mid- to late 1920s, where there was a lot of bipartisan and multipartisan cooperation, discussion, private members' bills and so on, to a situation where we don't even cooperate to the extent of letting one another know. . . . Well, it's not letting one another

[ Page 9384 ]

It's difficult to imagine events or resolutions of the sort that I've just been describing in the highly charged partisan atmosphere of today's Legislature, where real or perceived divisions are ruthlessly exploited by the media as well as by political foes. I think that's unfortunate. I think the institutional culture of 1924 to 1928 clearly offered members broader opportunities to voice their concerns and interests for their constituents than exist today.

So I think, in summary -- and I see the green light is on -- we need to look at some of the following, to make this institution work better: an annual parliamentary calendar to allow members to plan their time better, and I think this will help us to assist our constituents better as well; and a weekly legislative plan that outlines the government's priorities, so that we know from day to day and from week to week what we are going to be doing. I think we should look at a private members' day, where private members' bills have some real possibility of advancing through three readings and adoption. I think this might go some distance to breaking down the partisan rancour and division that exists in our House today. We need more free votes on issues of conscience and on matters not central to the government's legislative program. I know that we had a free vote on this side of the House in the last session. The sky did not fall. I think, in fact, that the move was generally greeted with respect and support by the press and the public. I think, as well, that a genuine reactivation of the committee system would be very useful.

All of these things would go a long way in making this House a more productive and effective institution.

I. Chong: I rise to offer some comments, as well, on the motion to recess. Unlike other members on this side of the House, I haven't always had the opportunity to debate this particular motion, but I think it's important to do so at a time when I think this government is trying to take advantage of this House and of the members on this side of the House.

Clearly the government is in the position to set a legislative agenda. The government deliberately sets out the time of the commencement of the legislative session. In so doing, they decide when we come back, they decide what estimates will be brought forward in whatever order, and they decide at which point we go into night sittings. All these things the government has the ability and the power to do. We on the opposition side would like to cooperate and offer this government a more organized and more coordinated effort to have the government's business and agenda move along, recognizing, of course, that there will be pieces of legislation that come up from time to time that will be contentious, that will require debate at greater length.

So I want to go back to the fact that our legislative session commences at a time that doesn't allow for full debate. When we first came here -- for many of us it was in 1996 -- we came into this House a month after the election. I believe it was on June 24 or June 25. That particular week was a short week. Because we were coming up to the end of the month of June and members wanted to go back to their ridings on the Friday, the House only sat four days that week, the first day being Monday and the second day being Tuesday, when the throne speech was read. The third day was the budget speech. On the fourth day we were lunged right into interim supply, because we would be adjourning for the weekend of the July 1 holiday, a holiday that many of us as Canadians feel is very important.

I accepted that originally because it was our first year here and it was a late session. I accepted that because we had just been elected. Very shortly thereafter, of course, we went into night sittings, and again I think many of us had to accept that because we recognized that it was in the summer. Many people have families, families that have given up their mother or father or brother or sister to be here. So members on this side of the House tried to move quickly through the estimates and whatever pieces of legislation were there. So that was in our first session.

[6:30]

The third session, this year, we came back, but this time it wasn't on a Monday; it was a Thursday. We came back on Thursday to have the throne speech. We were able to respond, through the Leader of the Official Opposition, on Friday. We adjourned for the weekend, came back on Monday, had the budget speech on March 30, and on March 31, lo and behold, again we had an interim supply debate.

I think that clearly shows our constituents and all British Columbians what a dysfunctional way that is for a Legislative Assembly to operate. It shows that this government takes the opportunity to reconvene this House at the latest opportunity that it possibly can. I don't think it served the people of this province well to have adjourned on July 30, 1997, and to return to these chambers at the end of March, that was almost a full eight months -- a full eight months where there would have been opportunities for us to discuss important legislation and also, perhaps, some of the estimates.

That's why, hon. Speaker, many times that we have been here in this House, we have advocated for a legislative agenda for a spring and possibly a fall session: so that we can deal with the estimates in a timely fashion earlier in the year and then move on to dealing with more of the legislation in the fall. Or if government would prefer -- again, we're trying to be very cooperative here -- we can deal with legislation in the spring and leave some legislation until the fall. There is no reason why we could not operate in that way. So why is it that every year -- it's only been three sessions for myself and for many of the members on this side of the House -- we see this kind of operation, this kind of attitude, in this House?

I believe our House Leader has always attempted to cooperate with the Government House Leader in trying to

[ Page 9385 ]

But suddenly the government decides it's going to bring in a piece of legislation, Bill 26, one day. And the very next day, it was brought up for second reading debate. In my three years here, I've never seen that happen. Why the rush? If it was that important, why did we not sit earlier? Why do we not have hours of operation that allow us to maximize our days? Why is it that on Fridays, when I understand we're supposed to sit until 1 o'clock, we sometimes only sit until noon? Why is that we start our session so late in the year? We can get the work of the people and this province done if we would only sit down and work out a schedule which is much more productive for all of us.

Interjections.

I. Chong: I hear the members opposite complaining, as I always have. It's unfortunate, because they haven't heard what we have been saying each and every time this motion to recess comes up and we decide to offer comments to the members opposite. We do so in an effort to get this House working in a much more productive way for the people of this province. If the members opposite, especially those cabinet ministers, don't feel that we can offer some opportunity here, then that's unfortunate, because we were all elected here, all 75 of us, to serve the people of this province. In whatever capacity we ended up here, whether on that side or this side of the House, we were elected to serve all British Columbians. Whether we agree or disagree with the ideology the government brings forward, we're still here to offer our comments and the voice of our constituents.

I mentioned the fact that we should have a legislative agenda. I think that that would do much to perhaps offer more opportunities for government and opposition members to work together, particularly through the legislative select standing committees. As the member for Shuswap mentioned earlier, there are 14 select standing committees. Every year the Premier gets up after his throne speech and announces these various select standing committees, but few of them have ever been enabled. . . . I am grateful that I was able to sit on one that did work throughout the session and after the session, and that was the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I know that there are a number of other members who serve on that committee as well. I know that the members who have served in the past and the current members see the value of a select standing committee.

If we had select standing committees enabled so that presenters could come and speak to all of us, then perhaps we could move along some of the issues which are contentious or some of the issues that require more input from the people we seek to serve. In so doing, when legislation is brought forward in this chamber, we could move it on that much quicker. Then we could perhaps set hours which are more conducive to those who have families, who would like to see their elected member home more often on the weekend. But we don't have those committees enabled. We don't have the opportunity to seek input from those who are perhaps better experienced or able to provide input. Instead, we rely on a very small number of people in our constituency to come forward and give us some information at times, or else we go out to those few people. Given that we're here most of the time, we don't have the opportunity to go out and find out what all of those views are. So they could come to us, or they could provide that input to us through the select standing committees, and then perhaps the legislation that is brought forward would be offered more support and less contention than there has been in the past.

Looking at this year's legislation that has been brought forward, we haven't had what I would say is too much difficulty in moving some of those bills forward. In fact, some of them have gone through fairly quickly, because I think the government has attempted to seek some input on some of them. In other cases, they have sought input, but they ignored it for the most part. When we have to offer voice to those particular pieces of legislation, it requires more time on our part, because it is important that our constituents know that we do want to represent them.

I do recognize that the motion is to recess. I suppose the difficulty that some members opposite are having is: why is it that we have to debate this motion? I think it should be clear. The reason why we have to debate this motion is because we have to draw attention to the dysfunctional attitude of this chamber. We have to draw attention to the fact that we have attempted to work with this government -- in the last three years that I've been here, anyway. Some of the members opposite have been here for ten, twelve, eight years. Many of them have been here longer than I have, and I would have thought that they had learned over the years that we can allow these chambers and the committees to run more effectively and more efficiently. We should know in advance. . . . I would think that some of these members -- in some cases, after eight or nine years -- would know how many hours we require to debate the estimates, what length of time is required to debate certain pieces of legislation which, even though they may appear to be amendments to other pieces of legislation. . . . You would think that those who have been here since 1986 or, subsequent to that, since 1991, would know the schedule of hours required.

So why is it that we sit so late when we come back here in March? Why is it that we cannot start earlier, in February or earlier in March, and then have the work of the people done and avoid the process of going through night sitting? When you think about it, if you add up all the hours of night sittings that are necessary -- which usually start around the middle of June and go through to July -- I'm sure that if we were to displace those hours and put them back earlier in February, we would accomplish the same things that would ordinarily be required in a session. What it would do is allow the members to have their summer with their families, which I think is very important for all members to have, and that's not what is happening.

I think it would also be important for the Premier and government members to recognize that if the House is to run its course, shall we say, and if it does require us to go into night sittings, then we should take advantage of every day that we are to be here to debate what it is that we have to debate. But last year, imagine our surprise when we had to adjourn the House for the Premier to take along a number of his cabinet ministers to announce the jobs and timber accord, which -- I won't get into it right now -- at this point, of course, we know was not a success, as the Premier suggested it would be.

And imagine my surprise when, less than a month later, we adjourned the House again for members to participate and help their friends in a federal election. That wasn't necessary. I thought the Premier had learnt his lesson last year when he

[ Page 9386 ]

Interjection.

I. Chong: Amazing as it is, as the minister states, we had to adjourn it for an economic summit in Kamloops. I have no problem with an economic summit being held and no problem with cabinet ministers having to attend that. But why did we have to adjourn the House for two days? Was it because this government was concerned that we would do something? They could have set the agenda; they could have had those kinds of issues ahead. They could have planned it; they could have prepared it. Or they could have brought certain pieces of legislation forward that they knew would be generally supportable. So why didn't they do that? Because once again, we see that this government doesn't have a proper legislative agenda or even a proper daily or weekly agenda.

We saw last Thursday morning that that was clearly the case. As I watched the television in my office, imagine my surprise when I saw the Minister of Human Resources rise not knowing what she had to announce. I think she said: "I call second reading of Bill 26, and I hope I got that right." Imagine my surprise hearing a cabinet minister say that. I was very surprised indeed. It is a concern for us on this side of the House when we see that the government is bringing in a piece of legislation not knowing when it's to be debated -- whether it's in committee, whether it's second reading, which estimates are going on here, which estimates are going on there. It is a concern for this side of the House, as I'm sure it must be for people in our constituencies who are watching or listening to the debates -- whatever the case may be.

As I said earlier, it is a concern for all of us who were elected to serve our constituencies. We were elected to be able to deal with issues, and we were elected to debate certain pieces of legislation that are not supportable in their entirety. We are brought forward here to debate at committee stage and offer amendments when necessary. Those are the reasons why we require the full time that is allocated during the day for whatever piece of legislation. But when the government decides that they're going to bring forward a piece of legislation and adjourn it the next day and bring in another piece of legislation and then call committee stage on one bill and start estimates on another, it doesn't serve the people of this province very well.

I know last year this same instance happened. I remember that I was debating Bill 9, the Tourism British Columbia Act. By the time we were through. . . . I think it took about a month to complete. I started it one day, and the next week it was brought forward. I got through five sections, and then the following week when it came forward, and I got through another five sections. So over the course of a month that bill was finally debated. That didn't need to happen either. If the government feels that there is a piece of legislation that is so important and they want it to go through second reading and then committee stage, they should plan for that to happen in that particular week. They shouldn't be chopping it up, because it doesn't provide adequate debate or consistency.

[6:45]

If that is the tactic that this government takes, then I think it's a shame. I think it's a dreadful problem that this province has to deal with. The people in our constituencies ask: "What is going on? Why is it that at times we cannot hold this government to account?" It's because we cannot seem to work cooperatively. There's no reason why we cannot. There are opportunities for us to come to a consensus. I think that if we would sit down and do that, that could happen. There have been many occasions when we have debated certain pieces of legislation that I have offered to speak to the members, the cabinet ministers, to offer some input or even to offer to work with them to better a piece a legislation or to offer amendments that would better it for the people of this province, because that is the reason why we are all here. We are going to oppose legislation that is bad, or else we will try to offer amendments in the hope that some members opposite will hear that and listen to that. Needless to say, I know that has not happened, and I know that still has a long way to go.

I would like to read a quotation from something that was said last year. As I read it the other day, I was very disappointed to believe that it could be true. But it was a comment made last year by one of the members on this side of the House when we were also debating a motion to recess. I believe it was made by the member for Matsqui. What he said last year is just as true this year. We have a Premier and a government that "have lost sight of the importance of a truly independent, functioning legislative branch of government." I suppose the member for Matsqui said that because he was feeling that we did not have a government that was functioning for the benefit of the people, that the government had lost sight of that and seemed to think it was up to them to decide what would happen here and to take advantage of this side of the House.

When I say that they're taking advantage, I say so only in terms of the physical hours. I don't try to imply that the members are taking advantage in any other way. But the members do take advantage when they think that because they are government, they can do what they want. They can call the House back when they want, they can bring up legislation when they want, and they can offer estimates when they want -- without consulting members on this side of the House. That doesn't serve anyone well to not be prepared to offer the kinds of debates that I think are necessary to hold this government to account.

[ Page 9387 ]

Those are just small examples of where we can move to, to work better for the people of this province. I know that the member for Langley -- I think it's Langley -- has introduced a bill, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, for five years in a row, I think. I was very surprised, when I was elected here, that she had introduced it for two consecutive years prior to that. Since I have been here, she has introduced it every year. I have to wonder why, when private members' bills are introduced, that they are not brought forward for second reading, allowing us to even debate them. Perhaps we can fit those things into a legislative agenda. If it's possible to come back early in February, perhaps private members' bills should all be introduced early in February or March. What a novel idea -- that private members' bills could be brought forward, and we could actually accomplish things on both sides of the House. We could finally see eye to eye and come, hopefully, to a centre meeting of the minds.

But that doesn't seem to happen, nor is there ever an opportunity to even talk about those things or think about those things. There are members on both sides of this House who do have private member's bills and whose views deserve to be aired. We may find out that they aren't appropriate; we may find out that they aren't supportable. But we will never know until we bring those things forward. We will never know what is wrong with a bill; instead, what happens is that some members bring forward the same bill every year in the hope of getting it to second reading.

The Attorney General and other ministers are here listening. Maybe they can take this back to cabinet, or maybe government members can take it back to their caucus and just see whether it is a possibility. If it's not a possibility, I'm able to accept that, too, because as I've said all along, I think it's important for us to at least try to work in a cooperative way. The Premier said so in 1996, and I was actually impressed. It was my first time in this chamber, and the Premier gave his inaugural throne speech. He said: "We have to find a way" -- because he knew how close the election was -- "to work together." He didn't say we had to agree on everything, and I accept that. But he said we had to find a way to work together. This is my third session here. I haven't seen how we have really made much progress in finding a way to work together -- except for perhaps a few of the select standing committees that have been enabled, such as the one that I'm familiar with, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

It is a disappointment for many of us on this side of the House. Each and every year we have to come forward, and we have to wait to see what the government wants to do. We have to wait to see when the government decides to call night sittings. We have to wait to see when the government extends those hours beyond 6 to 8 or 10 o'clock. I have to say that it was very good to see that this year we were able to go to the 8 o'clock time, as opposed to jumping right into the 10 o'clock time. It must be very disruptive for some members -- more so on our side of the House, because we aren't given any warning. When we come in on a Monday morning and we're told at 2 o'clock that we will be going into night sittings that will go until 10 p.m.. . . . The government is obviously aware that it is planning to do this, because their members surely must have to make travel plans and arrangements for their families. Those who have children have to make arrangements for their children's care. The government side must obviously know this, so why is it that they cannot share that information with us -- other than not allowing us to work in a productive and cooperative way with them?

It is disheartening. I'm hoping, perhaps as a result of our discussing the motion to recess and our other motions, that the government heeds some of the comments we make. They're not made to thwart the government business; they are made in order for this government to recognize that we are here to represent the people who we were elected to represent. I know that some of the cabinet members are getting a little restless. It's unfortunate, but there are some points to be made. I have not always risen to speak on the motion to recess. I did so today because I thought it was an important occasion to do so. The motion that we debated prior to this was also an important motion, and I'm hopeful that I will get the opportunity to participate in that debate as well. Hon. Speaker, I know you have been patient. With that, I offer these comments to other members of this House.

C. Clark: You know, I'm not the oldest member of this House; in fact, I think I'm probably one of the younger members. When I first ran for office, I thought to myself: "If I am successful and I'm honoured with the opportunity to represent the people of my constituency and elected to the Legislature of British Columbia, maybe I will be lucky enough to witness some moments of history -- to be a part of the making of history in British Columbia." I've had many moments like that, where I have been able to be a part of history.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I'll tell you, though, that on Thursday I think we saw a defining moment in the language of politics in British Columbia. On Thursday we saw the adjournment debate converted into the "I'm hungry; I want a ham sandwich; let's get out of here" debate. I saw that motion redefined in the minds of British Columbians. I saw it redefined into something totally new and different -- the vote-and-dash motion. "The ham sandwich is on special today. I've got to get down there; I'm hungry. Boy, my tummy is rumbling. I'll just vote and leave. Would you like mustard on that?" We really saw the language redefined in this House on Thursday. We can make light of it, and certainly it is a cause. . . . I think the Minister of Agriculture's reason for skipping out on the debate like that, as quickly as he could, certainly gives us cause to chuckle.

When we sit on this side of the House, we sometimes try and plumb the depths of thought that's going on, on the government side of the House, and wonder what's going through their minds. What were they thinking when they made that decision, when they cast that vote? What exactly was going through their minds? Certainly we are ideologically very different from them. We believe in very, very different principles of governance in British Columbia. As a result, it is sometimes very difficult for us to figure out what the heck was going on in the government's mind when it made a particular decision. So we sit across here and sometimes think about that. Certainly in the long hours of debate, when the

[ Page 9388 ]

Well, I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that on Thursday we got a glimpse into what goes through the government's mind when it casts its votes in this House. If this was like a cartoon and government members on that side of the House had one of those little thought bubbles over their heads, maybe it would say: "Hmmm. Ham, turkey or roast beef?" Maybe that's what it would say. It might, in some cases, just be empty. I suspect that might sometimes be true as well. But when the Minister of Agriculture lifted the veil just a little so that we could see what was going through the government's mind, I think that was a defining moment in British Columbia -- at least for me it was -- to know a little bit more about what the government is thinking.

[7:00]

But it didn't appear to me, when the Minister of Agriculture said he wanted a ham sandwich, when the Minister of Tourism voted in favour of adjourning the debate and when the other members on the government side of the House voted in favour of adjourning the debate, that they were thinking very much about the labour bill. I think they were thinking about getting lunch. And if they weren't thinking about the labour bill, what are they doing here? If they weren't thinking about one of the most important pieces of legislation -- a massive overhaul of the labour environment in British Columbia -- what are they doing here? That's the question we've got to ask, because the time we spend in this chamber is precious.

For all of us, I suppose, when we spend a lot of time here, maybe it becomes a little commonplace, but I will tell you -- for those people who tune in the odd time on TV, if "The X-Files" is on an ad or something or maybe for people who don't tune in at all but just pick up their news through the newspaper or through a television outlet or through the radio -- this place should have an air of sanctity about it. It should have a sense of seriousness. British Columbians expect legislators to take their jobs seriously enough that they are considering the legislation that comes before them, that they're taking the time to not just think about it -- certainly you need to be present to think about it -- but also to think about it clearly. They're expected to be focused on it -- maybe not quite so much focused on a ham sandwich but focused on the labour legislation in front of them. They're here to do it -- debate those issues that come before the House.

One of the very disappointing things for me so far today in this House has been that not a single member of the government, except for the one member who was obliged to do it, has gotten up and spoken out on Motion 50, which the Government House Leader has moved. Not a single one of them has gotten up and offered their opinion, which I assume would likely be in contrast to my opinion and the opinions of my colleagues, about why Motion 50 should be approved by this House and why we should put Bill 26 back on the order paper. Not a single member of the government has deemed this issue to be important enough that they would get up and speak on it.

I am looking forward to that. I am looking forward to the Minister of Labour getting up and defending his legislation and persuading this House to allow that back on the order paper. Where is the Minister of Labour to do that? Why hasn't he stood up to do that? That's been my big disappointment today. When the government says that it wants to recess, that they want to move their "I'm hungry; it's dinnertime now" motion, I say no, let's not recess. Let's take the time we need to debate this motion, to talk about Motion 50. Let's give the members of the government an opportunity to get up and make their voices heard on this issue. If their beliefs are so good and so right, then surely some of them must be prepared to try and persuade us and, if not to persuade the opposition, to at least speak to British Columbians. Surely this is the place where we have the best opportunity to do that.

One of the reasons that this chamber is televised in the first place is that people can have access to this chamber whenever they want it. They don't have to depend on the media; they don't have to depend on newspapers, television and radio. They can get their news about what's happening in this chamber directly from it. All they have to do is turn on the TV, and they can hear what's said and make their own judgments about how persuasive the arguments being presented are. That's what I would like to give the government members an opportunity to do. That's why I oppose this motion to recess tonight. I am still hopeful that some of them will get up. Goodness knows they have stood up time and time again to defend the labour legislation and talk about how it's a good thing for British Columbia, even though we know the economy is in tough, tough shape and probably cannot sustain that kind of a hit. They've stood up and been prepared to do that.

Why won't they stand up tonight and persuade us about why Motion 50 should be approved? Why won't they stand up and try to persuade us to put Bill 26 back on the order paper? That's what this debate is about. When we debate the procedural issues of recess, what we're really talking about is our opportunity to hear from the government side about why they think Motion 50 should go forward -- why they think we should approve it. If I am doing nothing but expanding their opportunities to do that, then perhaps I've contributed a little bit to this debate, this moment in history in British Columbia. One small procedural move by the opposition that hasn't been tried since the fifties has been able to at least waylay, if not hold up forever, a massive overhaul of the labour legislation in British Columbia that will do nothing but damage our economy and put people out of work. This is at a time when there are already record numbers of people out of work in the context of the Canadian economy and already people leaving this province in record numbers to go somewhere else. That's not the way it should be.

The Leader of the Opposition frequently stands up and says, "God did not intend for British Columbians to move to Saskatchewan," and I agree. My great-grandfather was the first British Columbian in my family. My grandfather was

[ Page 9389 ]

This is a province that people should be flocking to, that people should be dying to move to, that they can't wait to get to -- that they'd sell their belongings to move to. I'll tell you that the only way people will do that is if there's a job to come to when they get here, and there aren't enough jobs to go around anymore in British Columbia. The logging industry and the mining industry have been driven into the ground by this government. There has been a relentless attack on those industries and those working people's jobs and a relentless attack on our economy in British Columbia -- on all the things that sustain us and make this province the best province in Canada.

I want to see a government that restores some pride in British Columbia, that restores a sense of hope in British Columbia -- a government that people can trust again. That is my vision for government in British Columbia. When the government brings in these labour bills that will mean a massive overhaul of the Labour Code in British Columbia, all they are doing is hurting the economy. It's not going to help; it's only going to make our economic situation that much worse. This government, and every member on that side, has a duty to stand up and either defend that legislation because they believe in it or question it because there are problems with it. And I'll tell you, there are problems with it.

I know my colleagues have pointed this out, but I want to make the point again. The way for this chamber to work well is for us to work cooperatively, for the members of this chamber to work together and not be afraid to stand up and say that there are some things they'd like changed -- no matter what side of the House they sit on. On this side of the House I think we have been pretty cooperative. We have worked very well with this government in passing legislation and in moving estimates through. You'll agree, hon. Speaker, that the estimates have moved through at a great rate in this chamber. We have been focused in this chamber.

I hear the Minister for Children and Families complaining again about how long we have to spend on business in this House, how she hates being here and how she doesn't like the hours we have to keep. Well, I've got news for the Minister for Children and Families. If she doesn't like the hours, if she doesn't like being in the chamber and if she doesn't like the job, then she shouldn't run for office. She's privileged to be selected to have this job. She's privileged to sit in that seat. She's privileged to be a cabinet minister. You know what? She should take the job seriously enough to be prepared to sit in this chamber and debate the issues -- debate them in the open and debate them where the public can have some scrutiny. If she's not prepared to do that, she had better not offer up her name for office again, because that is what this chamber is about. It's about going to the government and asking for answers.

I've said before that it's not on my behalf, hon. Speaker; it's on behalf of the people we represent. The opposition isn't the only side of this House that represents people; the government represents people too. The Minister for Children and Families thinks that it's just quite acceptable for her. . . . In fact, that minister has said again and again in this House that it's not just acceptable; it's preferable for her to sit in her office and not come to this chamber at all. That's what she'd rather be doing. She considers this a massive waste of time. That's what she has said in this House before. She doesn't even think that this is worthwhile. She doesn't even like being here.

Well, I've got news for her. If she wants to be involved in government but she doesn't want to come to the Legislature, get the scrutiny of this chamber and ask the public for permission, then she should apply for a job in the public service. She shouldn't run for office, because that's what this job is about. It's about coming to this chamber, about being accountable for your decisions, about allowing taxpayers some access to the way those decisions are made and letting them have some input. That is what this chamber is about. It's not just about sitting in your office. It's not just about sitting in your riding. It's about sitting in this chamber.

I can't count the number of times that people say to me: "Gee, is the House sitting these days? How come I never see you around Port Moody or Burnaby anymore? Is the House sitting?" The government uses those kinds of comments to defend the fact that the House shouldn't sit at all. They say: "Well, if people don't know we're sitting, why should we sit?" The Premier uses that as an excuse to make this probably one of the least functional legislative arms of any government in Canada, one of the legislatures that meets the least and that has the least opportunity to scrutinize legislation. The government regularly goes cavalierly for special warrants, asks the cabinet -- behind closed doors, behind the secret veil of the cabinet meeting -- for special warrants before there's any debate. That's the excuse they use for never meeting.

On this side of the House, I would argue that the reason people don't know that this House meets is primarily because the Premier and this government have turned this into one of the least functional chambers in Canada. They have made this legislative arm one of the least relevant in Canada.

That's been the goal of this government: to try and hide decisions from the public as much as they can, to put them behind the veil of cabinet secrecy, to call the Legislature to meet so late in the year that by the time they bring in the big bills -- the massive ones that are going to cause an earthquake in the B.C. economy and potentially take us from the brink of a recession, where the government has already brought us, to put us over the cliff -- that are that important to British Columbia, to the working people in the province. . . .

They call the House so late that they can wait until the summertime to sneak through that kind of legislation, when they hope nobody's paying attention. That's the real reason the House meets so late. If the government really wanted to have the public engage in this debate about the labour bill, surely they would have introduced it in March or April, when the public was paying a little bit more attention, when people weren't necessarily off on vacation and thinking about those things you do in the summer with your kids. Surely they would have called it then.

[7:15]

[ Page 9390 ]

But I'm getting tired of explaining to my constituents: "Well, you know, the Legislature's not meeting, so I can't raise your issue in question period." I can't raise an issue in question period on behalf of a constituent until March or April, when the government is obliged to bring back the House so it can pass its budget.

The thing about this government is that everything in the way they operate is just about meeting the absolutely basic obligations that are set out for them in the standing orders and rules of this House; that's the way this government operates. When it comes to some of the larger philosophical issues about the way government should be run, about involving the public, those issues never enter into the debate with this government. It's not part of their vocabulary; it should be.

You know, if the government isn't prepared to have this House come back together in the fall or to seriously get down to issues earlier in the spring -- to have a set sitting schedule for this Legislature, so that we can plan our lives and know when the House is going to be sitting, so we can tell our constituents when we can best represent them, and mostly so that the Legislature can sit consecutively for enough months in a year that we can deal with all the pertinent issues before us. How about at least, as a start, getting the committee system going? This is an issue that I and all my colleagues have spoken about many times in this House. It's the committee system that will really democratize the business of this House, because the committees are empowered to travel. They can go to communities and hear from people outside of Victoria and Vancouver. That would really democratize the House, because then the public would have input. I believe that's the direction that legislatures in Canada should be going: maximizing public input, not minimizing it. Maximize the people's opportunity to have a say and allow representatives to speak on their behalf. Have more free votes in the Legislature. Let people speak on behalf of the people that are paying them. You know, if I don't represent the people of Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and if the member for Skeena doesn't represent the people of Skeena in this Legislature, nobody will, because nobody else can. Each of us is the only person charged with that particular job, and if we don't get up and speak on behalf of our constituents, then we're not doing our jobs. It is the public that we should be speaking for. They expect us to be their voice.

If the government is so convinced that short legislative sessions are the way to go, that never empowering committees to meet or travel -- except the ones that the government chairs. . . . If they think that's the way to go, if they think it's just fine to have no set sitting schedule so that people don't know when bills and estimates are coming up, if they think it's okay to have the Legislature sit as late in the year as they can possibly get away with under the law so that they can push their major legislation into the summer, then I dare them to run on that in the next election. I dare them to put that in their policy platform in the next election. You know, if they had put that in their platform the election before, if they had been honest about the way they thought this Legislature should work, if they had been straightforward with British Columbians and said: "We don't like the Legislature meeting. We don't want public input. We don't care if people are able to represent you. . . ." If they'd been honest about all those things, about their true beliefs on that and had put it in their platform, they wouldn't have been re-elected to government. I can guarantee you that, because British Columbians do want a say in the way government's run. That is the basic building block of democracy. If we let that slip away, what will go with it is public confidence in our system, public confidence that the system can work for people. When we lose that, then we have lost the system of government that is so important to all of us. If people lose confidence in their government and its ability to work for them, they won't even bother to go and vote.

When we look at other jurisdictions and the health of their democratic systems, one of the measures we use to judge that is the number of voters that show up at the polls every year. We look at healthy democracies, and we say: "Boy, they had a 70 to 80 percent turnout." When this turnout starts slipping to below 50 percent, where it is in the United States, that's got to be a source of concern. It should be a source of concern for us in Canada as well, because in some areas we do see voter involvement slipping. We see it slipping from where it has been traditionally, and that isn't healthy. Once we start down that slippery slope, we're going to be moving faster and faster.

I've got news for this government: young people -- and I don't necessarily count myself as young, but people in my age bracket and younger -- are the people that are most quickly losing confidence in government. Those are the people that we are going to be depending on to pay taxes in the long term. Those are the people that we're going to be depending on to participate in government for the rest of their lives. We can't continue to just hope that the older generation will continue to support our system. We have to instil young people in Canada and British Columbia with some sense of confidence in the system, and the only way to do that is to restore confidence in the system. I would suggest, hon. Speaker, that the only way to restore confidence in the system is to make the system work. Let's make the system work.

I started into a quick description of how we got where we are today -- here. We started out with a late, late call of the Legislature, just before the budget had to be passed. We went quickly to the throne speech and quickly through the budget, and then we went through estimates. The opposition was very, very cooperative in getting the estimates through. We haven't quite completed them yet, but I'll tell you, we have been working as cooperatively as we can with this government to try and get those estimates through quickly, to make sure that the system works smoothly. I think we've been holding up our end of the bargain on that. We've been meeting our obligation in that respect.

But it gets hard to do that -- to meet our obligation in that respect -- when the government holds its major legislation, its big guns, to the last minute, when they think nobody's paying attention. They think, further, that the opposition will just throw up its hands, give up and say: "Oh, we want to go home for the summer to be with our kids and do what we used to do before we got elected." I think that's what they're hoping -- that we'll throw up our hands and just give up.

Well, we're not going to give up, because this labour legislation is too important. We can't give up on that labour legislation. We can't give up on all those small business people, all those medium-sized business people, all those families that are depending on a healthy economy for their incomes, all those people who are hoping that if they can make it just another year, if they can struggle through these dark economic

[ Page 9391 ]

We on this side of the House will use every procedural means at our disposal, every tool in our toolbox, to make sure that we can stop this labour bill. That's what we tried to do. That's what my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson tried to do on Thursday -- actually, what he did do. We're proud to say he did it. He waylaid this dangerous labour bill for a little more time. We're going to keep working at that, because it's much too important an issue to sit back and allow the government to have its way. Our job in the opposition is to stand up when the government's doing something wrong and to do everything we can to stop them.

Some people say that the object of opposition is just to get into government. Well, I'll tell you, that's not the only object. The other object of opposition is to hold the government to account, to make sure that the government is doing right by British Columbians. When you get a government that's been in so long that they are arrogant and complacent and have forgotten why they got elected in the first place, then it's time for the opposition to stand up and say: "No, we aren't going to let this kind of legislation go through. We aren't going to let you play with people's lives like that. We're not going to let you put another British Columbian out on the welfare lines. We're not going to let you make another British Columbian move to Saskatchewan." That's not what we're here for. I am a proud British Columbian, as I've said. I won't let this government get away with this labour legislation, because it's bad for British Columbia.

M. Sihota: I was intrigued by the previous speaker, because she started off, during the course of her presentation to the House this evening, saying that she's wondering what it is that we on this side of the House think of while we're sitting around here listening to them give their speeches. Her argument was that we have visions of ham sandwiches running through our heads every lunch-hour and that, focused in on those ham sandwiches, we just kind of lose sight of what's transpiring in this chamber.

You know, she's right. Obviously the fundamental reason why we've gotten into this bizarre Alice in Wonderland kind of debate that we're having here tonight is because somebody was thinking about ham sandwiches, I guess, prior to the adjournment of the House the other day and allowed the member for Kamloops-North Thompson to have a little bit of fun. I guess they've got a little trophy that they're proud of as a consequence of that.

But that got me thinking, hon. Speaker. Come lunchtime or other times of the day, what is it that the members of the opposition are thinking of? If we're thinking of ham sandwiches, what are they thinking about? Then it became obvious to me what it is that they're thinking of. They're thinking of Bill Vander Zalm; that's what's going on. They're sitting over there, and while we're thinking about ham sandwiches, they're thinking about Bill Vander Zalm. It's an amazing thing what effect Bill Vander Zalm. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. member. Go ahead.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan-Vernon rises on a point of order.

A. Sanders: We are debating the motion to adjourn, according to standing order 45(1)(k), and the scope of debate, hon. Chair, is limited strictly to the arguments pro and contra the suggested sitting time and date. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is taking that rule far beyond the normal ability of it. I would ask the Chair to rule on that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I'll happily tell the members that parliament's dignity is impaired by time wasted in debate, and we are, as the hon. member mentioned, debating the recess motion. However, there has been wide-ranging debate by her colleagues on that side of the House, as well, so the Chair is in a little bit of a difficult position to apply those same rules to the member who is speaking. However, I'm sure the member will take your caution to heart.

M. Sihota: You know you're getting close to the mark when they start rising on procedural points, taking issue with what you have to say. But it's true: this guy, Bill Vander Zalm, is having a remarkable. . . . He's not here in the chamber; he's not up there watching; he's probably not even flicking around watching us on TV; but he's having a remarkable effect on all those people over there.

I'll tell you where it all started. It all started the other day at that little gathering they had in Prince George, when he stood up at the Yellowhead Inn and said, about the members opposite: "You know, one of the biggest problems with the Liberal Party is that they vote too often with the NDP." Now they don't know what to do, because he's right: 90 percent of the time they vote with the good bills that we bring forward in this chamber. They recognize the value of good public policy that flows from this side. Golly, gosh, gee, Bill Vander Zalm has a point: they vote too often with us. So they don't know what to do. Stuck as they are, what do they do? At 6 o'clock they decide that they're going to speak to a motion that says that we should adjourn until 6:35. It's now almost 7:35, and they've been speaking to that motion. Why? Because they don't know what to do; they're stuck. They're frozen, because Bill Vander Zalm said they vote too often with the NDP.

[7:30]

They had a caucus meeting today at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock. They said: "We've got to put off the day when we have to have that kind of debate. So what are we going to do? We're going to speak to the motion to adjourn to 6:35, not have dinner and just keep this House in suspension while we try to figure out what we're going to do."

That Bill -- what a guy; what an impact he has! The other day in Prince George he got up -- and I can hear him saying

[ Page 9392 ]

You know, I've got to say that I've heard the same thing that Bill Vander Zalm has heard. I think the Attorney General has heard the same thing; I think the member for Prince George North has heard the same thing. The members opposite have heard the same thing. They're confused; they just don't know what to do. So what do they do? They just sit here and spin their wheels in the Legislature, frozen as they are, because they don't want to deal with the issues of the day. They don't say a word.

I've never heard them say anything about the Premier's position on fish. Why is that? The reason for that is that they don't know what Bill Vander Zalm would think. If they go on this side of the Premier's position, Bill may disagree with that. And if they're on that side of the Premier's position, Bill may say that. They don't know how to handle it anymore. Bill Vander Zalm has frozen these people in time. They're stuck. They don't have an agenda. They're lost. The best thing that we can do in the Legislature is keep them here for a little bit longer so they can try to discover their bearings.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: It's not an imaginary dilemma. There's not one echo. . . . You can always tell in this chamber, when there isn't a heckle, that you're getting close to the heart. Bill Vander Zalm is having his desired effect on every one of you. You don't know where you stand. You don't know where you're going. You don't know who you represent. You don't know who you want to represent. You don't know what to do, so you stand up and you speak to these silly motions. Hon. members opposite, give it up. You won the other day; the member for Kamloops introduced a motion that caught the government off guard. You scored your points. Wrap up this debate, go back home, figure out who you are, and let the House proceed with the debate that it should be proceeding with -- namely, Bill 26.

A. Sanders: You know, I'm interested in the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who legitimizes debate by getting up and speaking to what he considers an illegitimate debate. I'd really like to know what it is. Is it your way, my way or the Amway? I'm really interested.

I have respect for the parliamentary procedure of this House and the decorum that we try to maintain. I have respect that irrelevant debate should not occur in this House. Many of us have been drawn from all over the province, and many of us are far from home. To me, this job is the most important job there is in British Columbia. When I am here, I want to be involved in the people's business, and when it is done and finished, I want to be home where the people who voted me in are, where my family is, where everyone to whom I am responsible is.

For those who don't understand what is going on in this chamber -- and there probably are many, if they have the occasion to be channel-surfing -- we are debating standing order 45(1)(k). Specifically, this says that there are motions within the parliamentary construct that we operate under that are debatable, as such other motions made up on routine proceedings or those that may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meetings and adjournment.

I stand tonight to debate the attempt by the House Leader to adjourn the House tonight after a day when we've had very, very important business of the House -- Motion 50. I will strictly limit the scope of the debate to the arguments pro and con as to the suggested time of the debate tonight.

Let's look at the pro factors. What good reasons would the government have to suggest that adjournment should occur? I've spent some time trying to think about what those actually could be. There's always -- as other members have brought up -- the object of sustenance. Many of the individuals on this side of the House and certainly on the other, have taken on the vegetative pose of a barnacle sitting in a chair all day. It may be rather healthy for some of us to probably miss a meal or two. I can't say that's a good enough reason to adjourn the House at this time.

There is, of course, the second possibility -- that this is a time for government to have a reaffirmation or an embedding of what the Ministry of Forests proclaimed as his edict that government can do whatever it wants. If government says, "Adjourn," if government says, "These are the orders of the day," and without motions, without any warning, they can just do whatever they like. . . . Quite frankly, in my period in the House since 1996, that is exactly the arrogance I've seen from the government that sits on that side of the House.

There could be, in terms of factors in favour of adjournment, a shorter duration for the government to bear the scrutiny, the dissection and the critical analysis of what is on the plate today, the motion on Bill 26 -- the resurrected motion to bring back a highly contentious bill that died on purpose in this House, that was set up by an assassin or sniper from this side of the House; the contentious, retreaded Bill 44 brought back as Bill 26. That bill died, and thank goodness for it, and thank goodness for the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who was able to get rid of that bill in this House.

The parliamentary procedures that we are governed by are very, very old. It was really interesting to go through the House Leaders sections from the Legislative Library and find that the last time this was brought in was in the early 1900s, or 1912 or 1880, by Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill's father. There were only two other occasions. It was a really good feeling to recognize that there is tradition, there are principles, there are rules, there are things that are supposed to govern governments. Members on that side of the House don't know their history, and because they don't know their history, they are condemned to repeat it. That is why the labour bill died in this House. It should be buried; it should be gone. That is why this House cannot adjourn tonight.

Other reasons in favour of the adjournment that the House Leader suggested are that it would give government the opportunity to get out of here sooner; it would give micromanagement of the potential damage that could be done in the chamber, and perhaps it could give the rest of the province a chance to go back to sleep and not know what's going on in Victoria. Hon. Speaker, this government does most of its damage when we're not actually in the House. That's when they sneak their orders-in-council through. That's when they make the decisions, the deals and the behind-the-scenes bargains. That's when they spend most of the money. Then they just come in here to do the housekeeping session

[ Page 9393 ]

Let's look within the scope of this motion. . . . What are the cons to adjournment at this time? What are the factors against adjournment? There are many. There is much business that needs to be done. It must be done expeditiously, judiciously, pragmatically and with all seriousness, because that is what the people expect when their business is done in this province. I have many suggestions for this, and our duty in this House is to at all times conduct the people's business sensibly, to not waste time, to not waste money, to give full disclosure, to make as democratic decisions as possible within the realm of this dysfunctional government and to really have people understand what is going on here.

One of the platforms of the B.C. Liberal Party in the last election was for fixed sittings -- a spring sitting and a fall sitting, with start dates and finish dates. Imagine the organization, the responsibility that a government would have to wear as its mantle in order to carry out fixed sitting dates. They'd actually have to have their act together. Can you imagine that? Have you ever seen that from this government, this government that has had two terms to practise? There is no way. They could never do it. It will never come under the NDP.

When I look at fixed sittings, in terms of the function of government and the function of opposition, I'm not really particularly interested in whether it's good or bad for government members. But you know what? It's good for families. It's really good for families. Imagine how many parents might come forward to run for MLA in their areas. Think of the responsibility and the kinds of people that we might get if they knew that they would be in Victoria for a fixed sitting in the spring, they would be out with their families when their kids were out of school, and they'd be back in the fall when school went back in. For a government that claims to be socially democratic, think about the single women that we might get to run. Think about those women who have two or three children, who can't come to this House with two or three children, from Westminster or from Skeena or from Port Moody, who'd say: "I'm going to bring my children over here, but I don't know how long I'll be here. Not only that, I don't know if I'm going to be home tonight. I don't know if I'm going to be able to have a supper break. I don't know if the kids will be able to get back to school on time. Not only that, I don't even know if they can have summer holidays."

Imagine the number of women, mothers and single parents who might come forward to be an MLA if a government -- not this government, because they're not responsible enough -- came in and brought in fixed sittings of the Legislature so that people who cannot contribute would have the opportunity to do so. Imagine how many talented people we would have -- how many in their peak performance years, how many in their thirties and forties in their mid-peak earning power -- and how many of them might come forward if there was something less than chaos in the schedule that happens to the parliament of Victoria. We want the best people here to do the people's business, and we want them to do the best they can. In order to do that, we have to have people from the sections in which the laws that this group make actually affect lives: people who work, people who have families, people who don't have a pension, who aren't relying on the benefits of good health, who may have bad health. We need all of those kinds of people, and the dysfunction of this House keeps them from participating in this process.

[7:45]

This government in this session has given us absolutely no ability to plan. We on this side of the House have diligently carried out our responsibilities, but we don't get fixed sittings, we don't know what the orders of the week are, we don't know what the orders of the day are. I was here last Thursday. . . . And I have spent ten, 20, 30 hours talking to people in the mental health area about the Mental Health Amendment Act. I have been waiting for that bill to come in because there have been so many people who are caregivers, patients and patients' advocates who have come in and said to me: "We want to be heard, and we can't find a voice from that side of the House, so we're coming to you because we have heard that you have an interest in mental health. We want you to be there for us and to have the opportunity for the things that we say to be heard."

Do you know what this government did? They brought in the Mental Health Act in the dark hours of the night. The vampire routine again -- you know, hope the opposition isn't here, because there's a fundraiser and they're probably all there. One of the most important things that I've been here this year for -- the Mental Health Amendment Act -- was brought in at 8 or 9 o'clock when no one was around -- there's no notice and no one knows. That's wrong. That is undemocratic. That is wrong for the people who asked us to speak. It's wrong for the people from your riding of Prince George-Mount Robson. They might have liked to have had you here to speak. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

A. Sanders: They might have liked to have had that member here to speak about mental health. God knows, it's something that's important to all of us, and perhaps that member might have had something intelligent to say on the subject. We've missed the opportunity. Once again, we have missed the opportunity for that member to say something intelligent. Shame! Absolute shame.

Today I looked at Orders of the Day because I was expecting that what would come up today -- because people still haven't gone away for holidays -- was the education agreement-in-committee -- the new, nouveau education act. Because we didn't have any Orders of the Day until 10:30 or 11, most of us got one or two hours' notice on what was actually going to happen in this chamber. I had people in my riding sitting at home and -- believe it or not -- watching this channel on the television, because they were so concerned about the education amendment act. They were so concerned that they didn't go anywhere, but stayed in their houses to see what kind of drivel came out about that particular agreement. And we got Motion 50. But we had only an hour's notice, so it wasn't that anyone could prepare for that either.

So no Mental Health Amendment Act on any kind of notice, no education act on any kind of notice. . . . A retreaded

[ Page 9394 ]

The government on that side of the House represents 39 percent of the vote in this province. The legislative benches on this side of the House represent the other 61 percent. That's a very telling figure, because what it says is that despite the fact that this is the government, this government doesn't have the vote mandate -- the number, the percentile mandate -- to take advantage of the sittings of the Legislature and to manipulate those on a daily basis. They don't have the legislative advantage to manipulate the lack of committee sittings. They don't even have the individual basis to give them the power to do what they do, from a percentile point of view.

It abrogates the responsibility for the people's business. It exploits the people's business. It doesn't provide the democratic right to oppose contentious legislation. It abrogates the necessary dissension from the other 61 percent of the province who didn't vote for this government -- who had no intention -- and cast their votes and said: "We don't want the NDP." The way this province is being run by this government abrogates their right for a democratic say in this House, by not giving the opposition the opportunity and the notice to do what they're here to do, and that's to represent the people at home.

We have very little ammunition on this side for fighting government. The whole parliamentary structure is tilted in order for government to function. The only ammunition in between the ballot boxes is what the opposition can bring up in terms of the dissension vote in this House. This government invalidates that by the way they carry on. This House malfunctions; it's a House where 61 percent of the province was in fact against socialism and voted for this side of the House.

I have some counsel for this government. I have a prescription; maybe that would be a more fitting term. If it demonstrates conscientiousness, if it exhibits any wisdom, if it practises maturity or shows any sensibility, then when that happens -- and I'm convinced that it does -- and the Government House Leader stands up and asks for adjournment, I will defer to her and concur with her decision. To this date, there's been no such evidence to suggest in any way, shape or form that I should allow her that common courtesy. I therefore, hon. Chair, say nay to the motion to adjourn.

P. Nettleton: It's a delight this evening to be able to speak to the question of adjournment and whether we should or should not adjourn. I'm certainly happy to have that opportunity tonight. Before I do, however, get into the merits as to whether or not we should in fact adjourn, I'd like to mention that here in British Columbia we have a new hero. That hero, in my view, is the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. This is a member who has single-handedly stopped a government that has often been characterized as bullying and intimidating. It's one that is not stopped very easily in terms of its legislative agenda, particularly with reference to labour legislation. So to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, I say thank you on behalf of all British Columbians. This is a member who may not be very tall physically, but he stands tall for British Columbians and certainly for his constituents. On behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca, again I say thank you to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson for standing in the breach for British Columbians and standing up to this government -- a government, as I say, that's committed to a very destructive agenda with reference to labour legislation.

Back to the whole question of whether or not we should adjourn this evening, I know that this question was raised roughly two and half hours ago, so we're some time past what customarily is the dinner break. It's ironic, I suppose, that the whole question of food, which afforded us the opportunity we now have this evening in terms of delaying at least this destructive piece of legislation, has again turned our attention to the whole question of adjournment of debate. I pose the question: why is it that we should consider for a moment taking the time to retire to the dining room and eat when in fact British Columbians are faced with a crisis? It's a crisis manufactured by the current government, a government that seems hell-bent on its destructive agenda with reference to labour legislation. So my response is certainly no, we do not need to adjourn in this time of crisis. In fact, what we need to do is turn our attention once again to this legislation, examine it in some detail and fight the good fight on behalf of British Columbians.

Speaking as I am tonight on the whole question of adjournment, in a recent Vancouver Sun -- not this Saturday past, but the Saturday before -- the business section headlines caught my attention. As I recall, I was flying from Vancouver to my constituency in Prince George. The headlines were alarming, and one read: "Battered B.C. Economy Cited As Thousands Flee." Now, I don't know about you, hon. Speaker, but the thought of thousands of British Columbians fleeing our province brought to mind television images I'd seen of refugees in various parts of the globe flooding into neighbouring provinces, children in tow, desperately seeking asylum from indescribable horrors. It's an all too frequent sight on the newscasts these days. Certainly for any of us with any sense of compassion or caring, our hearts go out to these people. We ask ourselves, or at least we should ask ourselves: what can we do to assist these folks who find themselves in this position, more often than not through no fault of their own, particularly the innocent children who find themselves caught up in conflicts and, as I say, in indescribable, horrendous situations in which everything is at risk?

More often than not, unfortunately, there's very little, if anything, we can do to help the people in various parts of the globe who find themselves fleeing their homes and who are in these very difficult and precarious positions. All we can do is keep them in our thoughts, keep them in our prayers. Perhaps if there's some sort of a relief agency that's been formed to expedite relief, we might send a cheque, do what we can to help these folks and hope that at some point in time they'll be able to start afresh, pick up the pieces and that somehow their lives will be spared.

Back to the headlines that I referred to sometime earlier, which caught my attention as I was sitting in comfort on a luxury aircraft flying from Vancouver to Prince George, here in British Columbia. One headline read that thousands are fleeing our province. Why are thousands of British Columbians fleeing our province? Is there famine? Is there war? Is there pestilence? What is the indescribable horror that causes thousands of people to flee our province as we speak, as we sit here in this chamber -- stand here, rather, in my case -- surrounded as we are by red carpet and marble, with people bringing us glasses of iced water and catering to our every need? Why is it that thousands of people are fleeing this province? Is it perhaps that we in this little bubble of luxury and comfort -- those of us who represent our constituents back at home -- have lost touch with what's happening out there? Is it the case that people are hurting?

[ Page 9395 ]

[8:00]

In recent weeks the thought has occurred to me -- particularly in light of this labour legislation -- that something is wrong; something is terribly wrong. What is it that we in this House are doing about it? For the moment we are debating the adjournment of debate on an awful bill -- a bill that will do nothing to alleviate the suffering of thousands of British Columbians who, as we speak, are fleeing their towns and their villages. They are fleeing this province looking for hope, looking for work, looking for an opportunity to make provision for those that they love and care for. It's a very, very difficult position to be in, I'm sure.

Prior to finding ourselves in this position, we had been dealing with estimates in this chamber. As insulated and isolated as we are from the real world, we nevertheless have a task before us. Nevertheless we have a job to do, and we take that job very seriously. We had been applying ourselves diligently, honestly and sincerely, working with the various ministers and their bureaucrats, working towards holding this government to account -- asking the questions that needed to be asked on behalf of the people that we represent, to see that business was conducted in a businesslike fashion.

So why is it that we now find ourselves in a position where we have a destructive piece of legislation foisted on us without notice, without consideration for the implications. Why, hon. Speaker, I ask you? Why is it that we find ourselves now in this position?

One of the things we have long advocated in terms of working through a session, such as the session we now find ourselves in. . . . Having been here since March 26, I think it was, with no end in sight, how might we work towards a more orderly, more efficient schedule to do the work at hand in a timely fashion? One of the things we have long advocated is a fixed calendar, preferably with a spring sitting as well as a fall sitting.

Now, as everyone in this chamber is aware -- there may be those out there who are watching tonight who are perhaps not aware -- we as opposition members are not in a position to impose a legislative calendar. So the most we can do and hope for is that we can persuade members of government to consider a legislative calendar. There are a number of reasons why we feel that it's in the public interest and in the interests of those of us who find ourselves working here on behalf of our constituents. It's not just for those of us who find ourselves in opposition but for government members as well.

Having been here now for roughly two and a half years, I guess, you get to know some of the government members and gain some sense of some of the challenges they face as well. Many of them have young families, as I know I do. My children range in age from three to 11. I know that there are a number of government members, as well as opposition members, who have young children. Those are the kinds of considerations they have to consider. It would be very helpful if we had a fixed calendar, so we could plan time with our families and do the kinds of things that people like to do this time of year, in the summertime -- heading towards fall -- when school is out.

In any event, that is wishful thinking at this point for all of us on both sides of this House -- for the government members as well as for the members of the opposition. Perhaps I've missed something. Perhaps there's some reason why we cannot come to an agreement on a fixed calendar. Perhaps there's some reason why it's impossible for us to put aside our differences and work out some sort of a fixed calendar. But for the moment I must say that if in fact there is a very obvious reason, that reason has escaped me.

There are not only considerations in terms of our families but there are also considerations in terms of our constituents. I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that when we're here in this chamber, insulated and isolated as we are in many respects from the outside world, it's oftentimes very difficult for our constituents to feel any sense of connection with us. It's oftentimes very difficult for them to feel as though they are being properly and effectively represented. I know that that's tough for those of us who work here from early morning to late at night to readily accept, but that certainly is the sense of many folks out there -- that in fact when we're here, we're not available. We're certainly not available in the sense that we're able to sit down and talk with people over a coffee, let them unload and discuss with us their problems and their difficulties, and then perhaps hear some advice from us or some insight we may have, or perhaps have some opportunity to give them direction.

We, in turn, rely on our staff, and we're blessed with wonderful staff -- I'm sure on both sides of this House -- who themselves work very hard and very conscientiously with us to represent the people that have put us in this chamber. So we do what we can while we're here. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the present arrangement is second best at best, wherein we're unable to plan for meetings with our constituents during the summer months leading into the fall. Those are the kinds of opportunities that would be beneficial for our constituents, the people that we represent. I think there's a very strong argument to be made that it's in the best interests of the people we represent, who pay our salary, who afford us the opportunity to be here, where we are in this wonderful position of privilege that we enjoy.

Public events. In my experience, it's very difficult to plan for public events, particularly events during the week, when we're here for a number of months, as we are and have been over the course of the last two or three years. It's very difficult to appear at a Wednesday meeting of council, shall we say, if we are here in Victoria, as we are, conducting business during the week, Monday through Friday. It creates enormous obstacles for those of us who want to meet with municipal and regional levels of government to not only tell them of our experience and tell them where we think they should go but, more importantly, to listen, to hear from people on the street, to hear from representatives of municipal and regional levels of government what their concerns are, what their burning issues are. I can tell you that if this government had done more listening and less talking, planning and scheming with their big labour friends, we wouldn't find ourselves in the

[ Page 9396 ]

I also believe that it's more cost-effective if you can plan in advance. I think that's true in any kind of business. If you can plan in advance, it affords you the opportunity to do so in a cost-effective manner. There are a lots of costs associated with running a building of this sort, involving as it does ministers, ministerial staff, security folks, people who work in the library and people who work in the dining room. I'd be curious to know what is involved in terms of the numbers of support workers in various departments here. Those are people who have lives, lives that they would like to plan. They oftentimes have families that are also effected by the fact that we find ourselves in a position where we don't know from day to day, from week to week or from month to month where we're going to be. It's very difficult for the people who work here. The people who work here are, in my experience, wonderful people who work very hard, who are dedicated and who earn every cent that they make working in this situation. So in my submission, that's another strong argument for having a fixed calendar that would avoid many of the difficulties we've experienced over the course of the last number of years.

Another advantage of the fixed calendar, in my view -- and I think most folks here would share my view -- is that it would minimize the stresses associated with work in this chamber. I personally don't have a problem. I accept and expect that there are stresses associated with this job. In any of the jobs I've done in the past, there have always been stresses of one sort or another. Whether you're working as. . . . I'm looking across the chamber at a couple of government members who I know have experience in the forest sector. They probably started out, as I did, setting chokers or working in the bush. There are certain stresses. . . . The member for Alberni is nodding his head. I know that he's had experience in the woods. Generally, young people fortunate enough to find those jobs. . . . There are stresses associated with those kinds of jobs. But over time, as we age, we're not able to run up and down the site hills and dodge logs, or it may be that those jobs are no longer available. That's something that we could discuss in some detail, but we won't tonight.

In any event, we find ourselves here tonight in this chamber, doing a job with which there are a number of associated stresses. A legislative calendar would, in my respectful submission, minimize many of those stresses.

My question to the government members -- and I see there are a number of government members here tonight -- is: why is it that you're not prepared to work towards a legislative agenda, a fixed calendar? Why is it that you're not prepared to do that? I can tell you that if you had any initiative at all to do that, you would certainly find that those of us who are in the opposition would be more than willing to work towards doing just that, to make life a little bit easier for everyone here in this chamber.

In any event, I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that I certainly don't feel sorry for myself, about the fact that I find myself here tonight at 8:15 p.m., working towards the wee hours, discussing a very important item. I expect that that is part of the job, given that we do not have a fixed calendar -- to which I've referred in some detail -- and given that we do not have a government that works with us in a conciliatory manner. It gives us the kind of notice that one would expect from a government that has the legislative agenda that it seems to have this session. It's no surprise to any of us on this side of the House that we are in this position. It is our job, our duty and our obligation to stand up for British Columbians, to fight for them -- particularly on a piece of legislation which is as destructive as this one is. There is no justification for introducing this legislation at this time. It's absolutely unacceptable. So here we stand tonight, those of us whose job it is to hold this government to account, doing just that: holding them to account on a wide range of issues.

[8:15]

This is a government that is hypocritical, in that. . . . Well, I guess it's no surprise to British Columbians that there is no meaningful consultation, because what we hear in a number of areas is that this is in fact a government that falls short -- many, many times, over and over again -- when meaningful consultation is involved. The committee system is certainly one means that we have at our disposal to move towards finding solutions to the problems that people have.

The article that I referred to earlier -- thousands of people fleeing our province, even as we speak. . . . I believe that we are in a time of crisis. We do not have the luxury of simply falling back on party lines and partisan debate. We do not have the luxury of finger-pointing, as this government is so apt to do. We do not have the luxury of ignoring the problems that are facing people and of pretending that they don't exist. Again, this seems to be the approach that this government has so often adopted when it comes to problems related to the economy and its impact on people. The pretend they don't exist. They suggest that it's simply a matter of confidence. That is absolute nonsense. It's indescribable nonsense to the thousands of people who are fleeing our province as we speak. It's small comfort to them to hear from this government: "Pretend your problems don't exist, and they'll somehow magically disappear." Unbelievable!

One can only hope and pray that this exodus of talent -- this exodus of people who are committed to our province, this hemorrhaging of talent and resources to other provinces -- doesn't continue.

This is a government that lacks direction. It doesn't know where it's going. It doesn't know how it's going to get there. Is it any wonder that at times it's very difficult to tell where they're going on any given issue? They themselves have no sense of where they're going; they themselves have no sense of how they're going to get there. It's a sad position that we find ourselves in, in a time of crisis, when we need men and women of courage and conviction, men and women who themselves have some sense of direction and can impart that to people who lack direction, who lack a focus and who have a sense of hopelessness -- particularly young people.

[ Page 9397 ]

So those of us who sit here as we do, sipping our water filled with ice cubes, comfortable as we are and enjoying the amenities we enjoy. . . . It's incumbent upon us to stand up for the people who are hopeless and who do not have any sense of direction. It's time for us to put aside pettiness and all of the things that get in the way of finding creative, positive solutions, to make British Columbia a province in which people want to live, build a future and build hope for themselves and their families.

It is my hope, and it is the hope of my colleagues, that our opposition to this destructive legislation will somehow bring this government to its senses, will somehow stop them in their mad rush to destroy our province, to destroy all that has been built up over the past years. With that, I'll sit down and allow one of my colleagues to respond to this motion.

G. Hogg: As the newest member of this Legislature and someone who came to Victoria with naïve enthusiasm and optimism, you can imagine my great joy and excitement to find that so early in my career I would get to speak to the patterning of the future of this province and a motion such as the one we have before us this evening. It is indeed exciting for me to participate in this, knowing that the future shape of our province is going to be to some degree dictated by the decisions that we're able to make this evening and as we move forward.

Hon. Speaker, I listened carefully to your direction and the direction that came earlier with respect to the arguments that we were to be making this evening, both pro and con, suggesting the sitting time and sitting date. I've listened with great interest to the people who have spoken before me, the comments they've made on both sides of this House, the direction they've given in trying to learn how we should be approaching this great and thorny issue before us -- the conditions, the issues and the attributes both for and against adjourning or proceeding with the debates before the hour, many hours ago, that we were looking at adjourning at.

When I was elected in a by-election in September of last year, there were many persons who came to me throughout the course of that election and talked to me about the operation of the House. They talked to me about issues such as the one before us this evening. They talked to me about the labour bill that was before the House at one time in its former incarnation as Bill 44, before it came forward as Bill 26. They talked about the way we would look at, deal with and manage things. Certainly it was an issue that was important to people in terms of the operation of this House -- important to the people of the constituency of Surrey-White Rock. They talked often about that through the course of the election and asked many questions, through the course of all-candidates' meetings, with respect to that.

I've listened this evening and over the months that I've been here to the concerns that people have expressed about the operation of the House. People talk about dysfunction and the problems with respect to how we could function more effectively, how we could make our meaning more valuable with respect to the issues that come before us. I'm reminded of the systems approach to problem-solving and decision-making -- the ideas that came forward in terms of how we can manage to make decisions that will assist us to deal with the problems before us and the characteristics of a group, be it a party or a Legislature or small subgroups within that context. Looking at the elements of encounter, the elements that we have to debate in terms of looking at decisions with respect to timing, dates and adjournments. . . .

One of the persons who has written a great deal on the elements of encounter talked about the process that occurs with respect to encounter -- that groups go through natural processes. I think that we probably go through that as we come to the decision-making we're dealing with this evening. We deal with it through each bill that we deal with and each process that we're a part of. In fact, I think that we have been dealing with it collectively as a Legislature since our first meetings in March. That process is one that talks firstly of inclusion and how we deal with the issues of inclusion, how we become a part of a group and how we look at decision-making within that framework and within that context. Clearly each of us struggles with that around each of the issues that come before us for debate. As we start to resolve that and come to some conclusions, we move on to issues of control and how those issues are dealt with within the context of the group and within the context of the process and debate we're in this evening.

Hon. Speaker, with your guidance and with the direction you've given us with respect to control -- with respect to decisions, with respect to the heritage and history and precedents that this House and Houses before it have taken forward -- you are able to give us that sense of control. As we work through those, I think we are able to come to some type of resolution by the structure that you've given us, the structure that allows us -- through the procedures, precedents and practice -- to come to some conclusions. Clearly that's what we're dealing with tonight as we struggle for methods to come to resolution, to be able to move forward and to deal with the public policy and business of this province.

Many of the people who have spoken to us this evening and who have talked in this debate have talked about the merits of a fixed schedule and the problems associated with staying away from a fixed schedule. They've talked about how they've been isolated in many cases from their sense of family, their sense of community, their sense of their constituents and clearly their expectation and understanding that came forward with respect to that. They've talked about missing community events because of the lack of consistency in the schedule that they're operating with. They've talked about not feeling as connected to their communities and therefore not being as able to provide the knowledge that they need to their communities and to this House in the decision-making that takes place.

We've talked about of being able to identify and to work with and to understand the issues of our school boards. Those have been so important to the operation of this House and have occupied so much of our time -- and will continue to do that, with the new legislation that has come before us. We've talked about regional governments and their impact on our ability to meet with them, to coordinate with them, to understand the impact that they have and that they operate with. Clearly, with the cities and the municipalities and the regional districts that all of us come from and participate with and try to coordinate as we come forward with our issues, it is extreme. . . . Or is it extreme? Or is it preposterous to assume that if we continue to be focused on one matter, we may not be able to find resolution, or dare I say even solution, as we focus this evening on trying to work our way through it.

[ Page 9398 ]

With respect to the baseball game, they talk about having a seventh-inning stretch, having a break within that context and, if I can stretch the analogy to that, about us taking a break similar to what has been referred to in baseball and in all the analogies that have come before us. That seventh-inning stretch is the time when you sit back and get a chance to relax and focus on the broader picture, to focus on the time of the day, the time of the night, the time of the game, and decide whether it's time to move on or to not move on.

At this point in time we are clearly debating whether it is time to take that break or to continue to move on. Just as it is in baseball, where there are two teams opposing each other and debating, looking for an outcome, looking for a victory, we have to focus on what that bigger picture is. The baseball game as an analogy, and the things inherent in that game -- such things as the breaks we take, the singing of the national anthem at the beginning and clearly the break in the middle -- are the things that we must debate this evening. Pros and cons: is it good or bad to take a break or to continue on?

[8:30]

Interjection.

G. Hogg: I've been asked another very pertinent irrelevant question with respect to baseball, and I will have to tie that analogy or comparison in at a later point, because we've moved on from the baseball analogies. But certainly there are many who make reference to that and find it useful as they struggle to decide how they wish to vote this evening on this most important issue of adjournment.

As we focus on the needs of this province and the people we represent, we can start to identify with the principles and the values, inasmuch as each of us has a different set of principles, a different set of values. Through those values, we create a different concept, a different sense of what the world is. Therefore we can see how each of us has a different understanding of the world based on those values. Is it one of a group of politicians who didn't seem to care? Is it one that we didn't seem to know, to understand, to report and to represent?

I'm sure that everyone on both sides of this House wants to ensure that we have good communication within our caucus, within this Legislature, and good communication with respect to our constituents. We want to have values and principles that reflect themselves in actions and decisions. Tonight we're speaking to a motion that would reflect in some action: the motion to adjourn. We have to ensure that we're not just focusing on those things before us but on a bigger picture, a bigger concept, because that's the biggest issue for us because of what we see as being in the best interest of all of the people as we look at the evolution and development of public policy in this province. The principles and values show us how we can see things differently, how we do see things differently, and those issues are reflective of our values, our principles and the reality which is then created through them.

Debate, sitting time, adjournments, public issues, times, dates -- they are all the issues that we have to look at and that we have to struggle with and understand. They are all reflective of time and how we choose to fill that.

Earlier this evening in the course of this debate, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin made reference to Lewis Carroll's wonderful novel Alice in Wonderland, and he talked about the issues contained in it and made reference to the things that occurred in it. I was reminded, as he was speaking, of the point in the wonderful book where Alice is wandering lost and alone through Wonderland, and she comes across the Cheshire Cat. She says to the Cheshire Cat: "Which way do I go from here?" At which point, the Cheshire Cat responds: "That depends a great deal on where you're going." When Alice said, "But I don't know," the Cheshire Cat then responded: "Then it doesn't much matter which way you go."

With respect to direction, I think that we must have greater clarity, greater concept and greater understanding of the direction and of the focus of the big picture that we're in, so that we don't get stuck on the technicalities -- the small pieces -- that can delay us from day to day, from issue to issue. That's one of those things that drives us on. When I was last participating in debate in this House with the Minister of Labour, he was making reference to Aristotle, and he had asked that we comment further on the things he had to say about this House and the operation of it. I think it's particularly relevant with respect to tonight's debate and discussion.

One of the things Aristotle said is that we are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then -- and, I might add, mediocrity and even less -- is then not an art but a habit. As we look at the acts and the habits that are repeated in this House, we wonder what in fact they become, what we become and where they in fact lead us.

I think there are at least seven or eight principles or issues that we must look at as we deal with our operation in this House in a broader context and more simply, also, in the context of decision-making on a day-to-day basis -- this being one of those smaller-sounding issues which has to fit within that broader concept, that broader framework and sense of meaning. We have to be positive, energized and proactive in all the decision-making we're involved in, if we want to have that type of positive flow and impact for our province, our party and the people that we represent.

When we're dealing with issues such as this, we must also focus and ensure that we have the end in mind. We have

[ Page 9399 ]

An Hon. Member: Hours to hours. . . .

G. Hogg: Hours to hours -- thank you. Seconds. . . . Sometimes the hours creep on at this petty pace from day to day. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, perhaps often signifying nothing -- in response to the lead-in I was given.

I think we must also look at first things first. We never let the things that matter most be subservient to those that matter least. Therefore those things that matter most have to be borne paramount in our minds, and we have to look at ways to move those. . .to look at the little things that allow us to contribute to that. Indeed, the debate we have this evening is one of those things that some might argue is a little thing. But in the greater context of where we're going, what we see and what we want to achieve, it actually has great meaning, value and import.

I think that when we're trying to make decisions around issues, we're looking for ways that we can have a win-win solution -- solutions that are going to be positive for all the people of this province, solutions that don't create winners and losers but create a sense of synergy and of the ability to grow and coordinate growth for this province. Clearly that's a problem we've been having in this province, as we look at our economic status and where that's gone. Therefore to take breaks at this point in time doesn't seem to fit in with our overall context, our overall sense of who we are and where we want to be.

I believe that we should be seeking to understand the process.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca rises on a matter.

R. Kasper: As much as this is titillating discussion, I would just like to remind the House and the member that we speak with relevancy to what the motion is, and that is adjournment.

An Hon. Member: Recess.

R. Kasper: Recess. To talk about the economic issues relating to the province, I think, goes well beyond the bounds of what we are in fact here for right now. This is just a reminder to everybody in the House and to those who may be watching to keep it on the point. There has been a lot of strain as far as the discussion. . . . I think we should make sure that the member keeps mindful of why we are here right now.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I am sure the point will be well taken by the member.

G. Hogg: Well, I'm sure it will as well. I'll try not to keep the meaning so well hidden. I'll try to make it a little more overt and more understandable for the member. I appreciate his comments and his clarification. I also appreciated his comments a little earlier, when he was able to talk about the meaningful pace as we creep on from day to day, making reference to one of the faces that is just up above you, I believe, looking down upon you -- in fact, it was one right behind you, hon. member. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, member.

G. Hogg: He made reference to that and, I'm sure, to adjournment at that point, in talking about wanting to have a recess.

The issue I was trying to discuss with respect to the recess, when I was given the guidance, assistance and support of the member from the other side, was the issue of seeking to be understood and then to understand. Clearly that's one of the methods by which we can better clarify the issues and the matters that we deal with and work for. Synergy, as we develop the energy to persist and work through these lengthy debates and have the growth that works through that, and practice at getting things better and leaving things, as we move through them, greater in terms of the sense of time and energy that we work with them. . . . Hon. Speaker, there are things which must cause you and me and all of us to lose our reason, or else I don't think we have any reason to lose. Each of us has some sense of reason, some sense of decorum and some sense of understanding. As we deal with this, we must look at that; we must look at that sense of reason and how recess fits into that broader context.

People have argued that in many cases, we can't see the forest for the trees; we may be stuck on the small motions and issues of recess, and we may be losing the context and the framework of the broader issues we must deal with as we work toward understanding what we are dealing with in this world. The painter, I believe, tries to convey to us a picture of the world as he or she sees it, whereas an optometrist or an ophthalmologist tries to enable us to better see the world. That's what we must be striking out to do -- not looking at, accepting or understanding this motion, this concept or this piece of a bill through the eyes of a painter or someone who is trying to portray that to us, but clearly and through our own eyes. We must strike at our understandings, perceptions, reality, values and principles as we try to discover the intent, the sense, the meaning, the motion and the movement that we must have as we come to issues of recess and how we can deal with them and put them within the context of what happens in this House on a day-to-day basis -- and of where we've been and where we're going in terms of the better delivery of services and public policy to the people of this province.

We can see adjustments and deal with those in a helpful way in our goals of providing better government, a better sense and a better direction for all of this province. We can see, combined, whether or not debate is useful, helpful or positive. That is the question we must ask ourselves as we take time to work our way through this and come to some conclusions with respect to what the meaning of recess is within this framework. The hon. member opposite, when he was making reference to William Shakespeare, may well have made reference to that comment and used the word "recess" within that framework to give it some context and understanding.

If we recess, do we delay the work which must be done for the people of this province? Does it have some impact on that? Are we now late in the week before many celebrations take place across this great country that may or may not be influenced by the time we put into this debate this evening? Would we therefore lose our opportunity to deal with some important issues?

We talked earlier this evening. . . . Many speakers have made reference to our ability to make contact and have an understanding with the people in our constituencies and the groups within that framework and their participation in things, such as Canada Day and local celebrations and com-

[ Page 9400 ]

If we did have a set agenda, if we did have a set schedule that allowed us to have sittings in, perhaps, the spring and the fall, would that take away the need for a recess from debate within this framework? I have spoken to many persons who would suggest, in fact, that the need for us to debate recess and late sittings would in some way be mitigated by the fact that we had a schedule that would focus on a different sense of who we are, a different sense of when we can be focused in dealing with things.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: I'm sure, colleague, that the hon. Speaker is listening to virtually every word I have said. I've been watching and listening closely. Sometimes it's not totally apparent, but I'm quite convinced that that is, in fact, taking place. I appreciate your support and comments.

Hon. Speaker, if we continue to keep this issue and the issues of the people of this province before us in this House, the issues necessary for the operation of this province and best interests of the development of policy in this province, we can do that by avoiding recesses. In fact, perhaps we should be sitting 24 hours a day at this point -- to be working things through, to get the issues developed, to pass those pieces that we need to pass, to make changes to those pieces of policy and legislation that we need to modify. Perhaps we should be debating in that framework. It seems to me that to put forward a motion to recess when we have the opportunity to do that would be counterproductive in terms of the issues of the people of this province.

[8:45]

We've seen some fairly dramatic shifts in the past number of years in this province -- dramatic shifts in terms of the way we understand and perceive things to take place. Virtually all societies make some decisions about the enculturation of their people through the process of play. We've seen some dramatic shifts in that which have affected the way we look at, the way we understand and the way we develop the policies that we have to deal with. We've seen a great shift from an intrinsic sense of motivation and understanding, to an extrinsic form of that -- not giving us the ability to then reflect upon our values and present them in the decision-making processes that we might necessarily be involved in. I think that our society and culture have seen some dramatic shifts that have caused those things to take place.

We've seen the advent of many things which seem to reflect themselves in this House -- many things that want us to move to more spontaneous types of decision-making, that want us to move more quickly than we might otherwise do, to not have the contemplative, thoughtful, reserved approach to decision-making which might, in fact, provide us with a more thoughtful and perhaps better outcome. We're seeing some of those shifts happening quite dramatically. A few things, such as the advent of the changes in the types of toys that we're seeing and the types of television that we're watching. . . . We are giving and bombarding our children and ourselves with all of that extrinsic stimulation, which requires us to make decisions more quickly and move away from the processes that have been entrenched within the needs of this House.

There have been references made by such notable thinkers as Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, with respect to the principles and processes by which we make some of those decisions. I believe that we've gone through some of those this evening, as we start to struggle with the conclusions regarding this issue -- this motion to recess. I think some of us initially went through those stages of denial, in fact, that that was happening -- that in fact it was our firm belief that we would continue to be working forward on the legislation before us, working forward on Motion 50 and trying to struggle with that crucial and important thing. So the first step in that stage was one of denial -- it's not really happening that we're moving away from that. I think some of us then, as we looked at the issue of recess and looked at what that meant within the context of the broader issue we were dealing with, saw some anger happening out of that. We tried to resolve some of the denial and some of the anger with some of the issues of internal conflict, internal debate, internal bargaining as we moved through that; and then the realization that in fact we were going to have to deal with it and some of the angst that comes with that, some of the angst associated with having to deal with the issue before us -- whether or not we do have to debate, look at and resolve the issue of recess.

Ultimately, I think most of us have come to some type of acceptance that we do have to work through, understand and debate the issue. We are all hopeful that at the end of that we will have some positive outcomes and positive conclusions to the direction and the focus that we've taken. For that is the cycle that has been referred to as one of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance and hope as we move through the context of the world that we're working in, the issues that we're dealing with.

There are many single-interest groups that have focused on the issues that we're dealing with and have talked to us about the way we deal with those. Many of those single-interest groups have been seen by some persons to be in fact one of the downfalls of democracy. We have to be able to be broad-sensed in our concept, in our reception and in our dealing with those types of issues as those persons come forward in this type of context. The issue of a recess, to many, seems menial in and by itself. But when we do look at it in a broader framework and in the broader context of all that we're dealing with, then it does say much more to us.

How did we get to this point? I think that we all look at it and wonder how it is and why it is that we've come here. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson was looking at, was managing, was working in what he believed were the best interests of himself, his riding, his party and this province. As he said so eloquently, he has very few tools in his toolkit as a member of the opposition, and he was using every step, every measure possible in order to look at and to delay it. His framework was one that tied him to that, so a fixed schedule seemed to be a way that moved him away from having to debate, having to deal with and having to argue about the needs for recess and what a recess is.

The single-interest groups and the issues around that are also part of the corporate society that has been referred to --

[ Page 9401 ]

With that, I will give way to other members. Thank you for your indulgence and time.

K. Whittred: It gives me pleasure this evening to rise to speak to this motion about recessing the House. If there are people watching on television, some people may wonder: "Why are they debating this? What possible need is there for this kind of debate?" Well, this is the sort of debate I think we need from time to time in order to give us an opportunity to address the roles that are played by the various sides in this House.

In this chamber we have, as almost anyone can witness, two sides. We have a government side and an opposition side. It goes without saying that we each have our particular responsibilities. The government, of course, has the responsibility to bring forth legislation and to provide guidance and government -- and we hope good government -- for the people of the province. We on the opposition benches have the task of holding that government to task. It is our job to be the people's watchdog. It is our job to question that legislation.

One of the things that from time to time has been mentioned in this debate is the toolbox. It has been suggested that the government has a set of tools, just as the opposition has a set of tools. It was also suggested by members of the government that when the opposition member moved to adjourn the House, it was somehow an accidental motion. It was not accidental at all; it was the members of the opposition benches using the tools in their toolbox.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are dealing with the recess motion.

K. Whittred: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This relates very closely to the recess motion, because we are talking about responsibilities here and the various responsibilities that people have on various sides of the House.

One of the things that I think the government would acknowledge, if we were talking about the tools that were available to members, is that the government. . . . And I don't know whether or not anyone on that side of the House is a fan of "This Old House" and Norm Abram, but I would suggest that they have Norm's toolbox. They can reach into their toolbox and pull out an automatic glue gun, they can pull out a computerized router, and they can pull out a table saw, I'll bet, with an automatic fence. Members on this side do not have quite that luxury. While the people on the government side get the automatic glue gun, we get the glue stick. That is why it is so significant that we have this discussion, because it says to the people of the province that the opposition is doing its job. The opposition is using whatever little bits it has in its toolbox to try to hold this government accountable.

One of the speakers a little earlier talked about this government being held to its responsibility for the events of the last couple of days. I call these events "the oops reaction" on the part of the government. The government got caught asleep, and what do they have to say? "Oops."

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise on a point of order. I have just joined the chamber, so I may need to be informed. We are debating a motion to rise and take a recess, and I understand the debate around that is to the advisability of time and place. I think the member speaking now needs to be drawn back to that debate, please.

The Speaker: I thank the minister for that observation, and I recognize the hon. member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Just a quick point of order. I listened to the debate by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who never even mentioned the word "recess." The Speaker may not have been in the House at the time either, but I listened to that speech from start to finish. So I would suggest that the Government House Leader sit and listen to a little bit of the debate -- maybe read Hansard -- and find out what is relevant or not.

The Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate what you're saying, hon. member.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is well within the realm of the opposition to raise a point of order when anybody is speaking, and I regret that he missed his opportunity during that debate. But I raised the point of order in the context of the current debate.

The Speaker: Thank you, Government House Leader.

I remind all members of the rules of debate. On page 90 it does say: ". . .this motion is strictly limited to arguments pro and contra the suggested sitting time or date." It has been our practice to be a little wide-ranging, but we have to be at least as close as we can get to the notion of the recess, which is the topic of the motion.

K. Whittred: I will take the Speaker's words to heart.

One of the things that certainly this side of the House has attempted to do in this session is to be focused. We made it part of our strategy at the beginning of this session to be efficient, to be constructive, to make good use of time and to make the time that we used in this House productive. We have, I think, gone out of our way to abide by that particular set of guidelines. If the members of the government were to look at the Votes and Proceedings, they would find that the estimates of the House have been attended to in a timely manner. There has certainly been no excess in terms of time. There has been no wasting of time.

Opposition members have been efficient in their business, and yet this does not seem to have been recognized by the government in the way they cooperate. In fact, going a bit further than that, I would note that until the last week or so, the government, in terms of the timeliness of their legislation, was I think somewhat neglectful. It has only been in the last week or so that the government has brought in what is the major thrust of their legislation and what are the most contentious bills. For example, in the last few days, they have brought in a very important GVTA bill dealing with transit. They have brought in an education bill, which has many, many implications. They of course have brought in Bill 26, which basically tells the people in. . . .

[9:00]

[ Page 9402 ]

The Speaker: The member has no doubt heard the suggestions. Proceed, hon. member.

K. Whittred: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

One of the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order, please.

K. Whittred: Certainly I think that all members who come to this House, regardless of which side of the House they are on, come wanting to do the people's business and wanting to do this in a timely fashion, making the best use of the time we are given in the House. Over and over, this side of the House has spoken about a legislative calendar. Let's make use of the time we have in this House. The particular system that we have now. . . . Again this goes back to one of the tools that the government has in its toolbox. It's impossible to separate some of these things, because one of the tools that the government has is the ability to control the timetable. So how is it possible to speak about making good use of time without making reference to that toolbox? That is what the government has in its toolbox. It has the power to say when we come back to this House. And when do we come back? Every year we come back at the last possible moment in order to get supply. The government does not call us back because they feel any great need or responsibility to attend to the people's business; they call us back because it is the end of March and they need supply.

We are facing that situation again. The government is going to have to come to us once again within the next few hours, because in spite of our cooperation, they have mismanaged the time allotment in this House, and they do not have supply. Once again we are going to be debating an interim supply motion.

Looking once again into that toolbox, we find that there are all sorts of committees that never meet. You know, one of the most disappointing aspects of my experience as a member of this Legislature is that the committees do not play a role. I think that is a shame, because there is expertise on both sides of this House, and that expertise could certainly be used to come up with legislation that would be appropriate to all members of the Legislature.

The government has the power -- another tool in its toolbox -- to control the agenda. It says when something will be brought and when something won't be brought. This is why we're having this discussion: because they control the timing. That is not something that the opposition is able to do.

A short while ago one of the members opposite spoke, and he spoke at length, accusing the members on this side of the House of not knowing where they're going. Well, I would like to take a bit of an exception to that. You know, hon. Speaker, I often sit and envy the members opposite, in a kind of malicious way, I suppose, because it is so easy for them. It's easy for them because they know the truth, and anybody who disagrees with them is incorrect and needs to be re-educated. I often think: "What a wonderfully comfortable position that is, to live in a world where no one is allowed to have a differing opinion."

Interjections.

K. Whittred: A few minutes ago one of the government ministers was heckling, saying: "Quit your whining." That expression epitomizes this government. It is a government that has become arrogant and lazy. I think we should take a moment to look at what happens to governments that become arrogant and lazy. I am reminded of what happened, in terms of votes, to a particular Prime Minister who said to the people of Saskatchewan: "Why should I sell your wheat?" I don't think he ever got another vote from that province. I am reminded of the arrogance of a government, back in 1956, on the pipeline and what happened to that government. It was turfed out of office. That is the fate of governments that forget who they serve and that become arrogant and lazy. The other morning the actions of the government were the actions of a government that has become exactly that.

Let's review for a moment some of the ways in which this government does not manage this House in a timely manner -- does not make good use of the time. I have spoken about the need for supply -- that is one way: this business of always waiting until the absolutely last possible moment. There is the business of photo opportunities. My goodness, don't we have photo opportunities in this government? This House is forever adjourning so that there can be this meeting or that announcement. What it really amounts to is that the Premier is going to get his picture taken. That is why these things are appropriate to this debate; they have to do with how this House utilizes its time.

There is the business of introducing legislation. Why did the government have to wait until this time in this session to introduce all of its contentious legislation? In the first two months of this session, we saw very little legislation, and what we saw was basically housekeeping legislation. Then all of a sudden, all of this legislation is thrown on our desks, and the government has the audacity to turn around and say that we are not being responsible because we're not giving them their way with that legislation. That isn't the way it works. Our job -- the only job we have as opposition, one of the few tools that we have in our toolkit -- is to debate those bills for as long as it takes.

Finally, we have some examples that are nothing more than almost contempt for this House in the timing of their presentation. One has already been mentioned by some of my colleagues, and that is the Mental Health Amendment Act. The mental health bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be brought before this House this session. It is the outcome of an announcement that was made by the former Health minister and that is supported, I think, by both sides of the House. Yet it was shoved on the order paper the other evening -- on an evening when the government knew that the opposition had another very important event going on -- and that is not what I would call cooperation.

There was an incident a couple of months ago. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The hon. member who has the floor, take your seat for just a moment. I'd like to call everyone to order, please. There is a speaker who has gained the floor and has the right to debate.

[ Page 9403 ]

I would like to relate an incident from the world of sports that happened a few months ago. I think it exemplifies a little bit what has been going on in this House. It was at the Players Championship, in the world of golf. Davis Love III was disqualified from this tournament because he had inadvertently missed that his ball had moved, and he signed an incorrect scorecard. This particular sportswriter said: "Why didn't his caddy see it, or his fellow competitor or the spectators?" This error cost him $90,000.

That is pretty much what I've been hearing in this House: a lot of buck-passing. Why didn't someone else catch it? Why didn't someone else see it? Why didn't someone do something? The fact is that this was the government's responsibility. In the world that I come from, when somebody makes a mistake, they get up and defend that mistake -- or they explain it -- yet this government is unwilling to do that. It is time that this House looked at its procedures and looked at reforming the way we do our business. The way it is, we are not meeting the people's needs.

On that, I will yield the floor to one of my colleagues.

[9:15]

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

I recognize the hon. member for New West. . .West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: I didn't know my riding had expanded, hon. Speaker. It is still on the North Shore, as far as I know.

We're debating a motion to recess that the House Leader brought forward. Of course, the issue here -- and I will be addressing the issue -- is management. I know it's a foreign word to the government. It's like that other word, "consultation," which this government doesn't understand. That is the issue that we are debating this evening, on this motion to recess. It's the management of this House; it's the management of this province; it's the management of the people's business.

It's a horrible thought, but this government is in charge of a $21 billion budget. That's frightening. For the four people who may still be watching, I'm sure they are shuddering over the fact that this government has its clutches on $21 billion of our money. With that size of budget, the government, of course, has a responsibility to manage the people's business properly and to do so in a businesslike manner. Part of that is the very issue that we are debating now on the motion to recess and, of course, the controversy that led up to this -- the infamous Motion 50, which we started on earlier today.

I was away last week. If I have time later, I will be giving a little travelogue on my trip through part of the province, which, if this government managed things better, they could have all been doing. If they had any sense and any concept of management, they too could have joined me in my travels through the Kootenays. However, they lost that opportunity.

Leading up to this motion to recess was Motion 50, which the House Leader had to bring in earlier today because they dropped the ball last Thursday morning on Bill 26. The two sleepy ministers who happened to be in the House that morning were not managing the affairs of this province. In fact, one of them was in rush to get down to the dining room, I understand, for a ham sandwich. It's a rather poor excuse for adjourning the House, under those circumstances.

Let us examine some of issues surrounding the motion to recess that we are dealing with this evening. Of course, Bill 26 is a central part of the issue that, directly or indirectly, we are addressing, the infamous Bill 26, son -- or daughter, if the members opposite wish -- of Bill 44, which has now come back to cause further damage to the economy of this province. Remember that we're dealing with a $21 billion budget. If that isn't a significant economic factor, I don't know what is. Yet this government, flying in the face of all the best advice, decided to bring back Bill 26, a revisited Bill 44. It is the function -- and properly so -- of the opposition to debate Bill 26 in second reading, as they started to do over a week ago now, and the opposition was doing so. I actually tuned in, from time to time, while I was travelling through the Kootenays. I even saw members opposite. . . . At one point I saw the member for North Island on his feet, addressing Bill 26. All sides were quite happy to deal with that issue.

I see the House Leader on her feet again, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to the member's attention the motion before us, which is to debate the advisability of recessing for half an hour. Really, when you talk about what we do discuss during that, according to the standing orders, it's the appropriateness of the sitting time and date. I would suggest that any other debate is out of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I thank the Government House Leader for her wisdom and her input, but the Speaker has already made a determination. The debate has gone on tonight as it has gone on, on a multitude of other evenings, with the precedent and practice of this House. The member, I think, had been up for all of about a minute and a half and was just getting started. It's hard to tell the context of someone's speech before they've actually had a chance to start to deliver it. I think the member will certainly heed the Speaker's previous comments and will follow them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. The members are aware of the standing order. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the members are ready, we will continue the debate.

J. Dalton: It's always intriguing to have these little snippets on the sidelines, but maybe some of the members opposite would like to step onto the playing field and participate in this exercise. They seem to be incapable of that. I certainly saw that secondhand last Thursday -- they were so incapable.

Again, the issue I'm addressing. . . . I know the House Leader doesn't want to deal with the issue, because she's in

[ Page 9404 ]

Those are the points I'm trying to make, and I would appreciate it if the members opposite. . . .. If they don't want to listen, fine; but if people are going to be jumping up and down on their feet every minute, all that will do is add extra time to the process. It'll be like some of the soccer games, and we'll go into overtime if we have to.

Back to the remarks that I was making when I was so otherwise interrupted. . . . Bill 26 is central to our discussion because we wouldn't be debating this and the other issues if Bill 26 wasn't so badly mismanaged. We'll be coming back to that bill someday, I guess, in second reading and committee stage. I'm just pointing out for the members opposite -- perhaps they might learn something from the exercise of this evening -- that if they managed things better, even the contentious bills, and brought them in earlier instead of this last-minute nonsense, we wouldn't have to be spinning our wheels in some of this discussion. I see the Labour minister is now sitting here, so maybe he'll take heed of some of this.

This is the end of June; it's June 29 today. Tomorrow will be interim supply, part 2. Why? Because they've blown that one out the door too. We were cooperating with the government, through our House Leader and our critics, to get the estimates in a timely fashion. It was working until two weeks ago when, guess what: the Labour minister trots into the House with Bill 26. Well, that's his problem, not ours.

Putting aside Bill 26, because I know they don't want to hear about it. . . . What else have they done lately? My colleague for North Vancouver-Lonsdale has just made reference to some of the other problems in the last week or so. There's Bill 39; that's the education bill. If this government doesn't think that they have a management problem with Bill 26, wait till we get to the education bill. I know I'm not allowed to bring props into the House, so I certainly won't show anyone at home or otherwise these farcical documents that the Education ministry has put out at our expense in the last little while. There's a very false promotion exercise to peddle their agreement-in-committee that we know is a backroom deal of the worst order, one cooked up between the Premier and his buddy Ken Novakowski, whom he goes fishing with. That's all that agreement was about. So what do we get? Well, I'm a parent; I have a kid in both elementary and high school; so I happened to get two of these -- one from elementary school and one from high school. All the taxpayers in this province who don't have children in the public system don't get these documents. You know why they don't? They want to send this propaganda home and try and con the parents into supporting this nonsense that this government does to mismanage public education in this province. That's what they do. And that's a shame. If that isn't an exercise in mismanagement, I don't know what is.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you can tie this, I'm sure, to the recess motion.

J. Dalton: Oh, I will.

It's just that when I get onto the topic of public education, I get a bit steamed. I've had kids go through the system. . . . My son is now at BCIT; he's gone right through the public education system. All we see is interference from government, interference from the Minister of Education and interference from the BCTF executive, because they're all in bed together. That's how we mismanage public education in this province.

What do we see in these intriguing documents that only parents will see? Well, here's an intriguing summer reading list that maybe some of the members opposite might like to participate in.

An Hon. Member: Can they read this at recess?

J. Dalton: Yes, they can. When we recess they can read this.

One of the lists is "Best Bets for Young Readers." I'm going to read this one myself, hon. Speaker. The title is "Dippers." This must be something about the NDP. Let's all rush down to the local library and take out the book called "Dippers" and see what that's about.

So here we go. I've been informed that these documents that I can't show as props cost 27 cents each for every public school student in this province, of which there are over 600,000. That's 27 cents each to produce this propaganda.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member take his seat, please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I would note that we have a motion before us that's about the advisability of recessing for a half-hour for supper. That motion is debatable on the grounds of the appropriateness of the sitting time and date. There are plenty of other opportunities that we look forward to, to discuss the issues being addressed by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, but they are inappropriate and out of order right now.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member is trying to make his point as to why we. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. The member is making the point that if the government had managed its legislative agenda better we wouldn't be here doing what we're doing this evening. The education bill and the timing of it relates to that.

Hon. Speaker, I would draw your attention if I may, to the. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, here we have again. . . . The Government House Leader has been feeling pain these last few days, because it's the sixth or seventh. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: The one time you get up to speak, you have to have a translator.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll wait until the hon. member opposite has finished her insults, and then I'll proceed with my points of order.

[ Page 9405 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll continue to do so.

G. Farrell-Collins: They are the same points of order. . . . She has just told me she will continue to raise them, hon. Speaker. I would call the Speaker's attention, if I may, to standing order 9 and the ruling on July 1, 1952, in the House of Commons in Great Britain, which is listed in Erskine May. You know, hon. Speaker, the minister -- the Government House Leader -- seems to ridicule the standing orders and the rules of this House; yet she stands up on points of order frequently to cite them. Hon. Speaker, what is happening is that the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . . Member, continue.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm trying to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the member opposite, I believe, in her belligerent and continuous raising of points of order. . . . When the Speaker knows full well what the parameters of debate are here tonight and has done a fine job of enforcing them, the Government House Leader has now raised six or seven points of order in succession. . .

[9:30]

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .drawing the attention. . .and insists that she's going to continue to do so, which is a clear violation of standing order 9, as fraudulent points of order. . . . Hon. Speaker, I think the minister's points of order should be dealt with once and for all. She should be asked to cease her constant disruptions and interruptions of members opposite. That's clearly within standing order 9 and the Speaker's power to maintain order in this chamber.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Only in response to yours.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When order is in place, then I think I'll recognize the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. . .

J. Dalton: Yes, all right.

The Speaker: . . .with a caveat, though, which you will appreciate: it requires connecting points you make to the recess motion.

J. Dalton: Fair enough. In fact, hon. Speaker, with respect to your ruling, I would hate to have the Government House Leader jumping up and down again. She'll get more exercise than she needs this evening -- than she will tomorrow morning at the gym. So we want to make sure she's fresh for that.

We'll get to Bill 39 later. Later, we'll get to the 27 cents per brochure for over 600,000 students; that came to our doorsteps, those of us who happen to have children in the system. And we'll get to the GVTA bill, Bill 36. But one point about management, hon. Speaker, because that's the issue again. Recess, adjournment, out for ham sandwiches or whatever -- it's all a management issue. The problem with the GVTA bill is that they knew months ago that they had to bring that bill in. It was ratified by cabinet and the GVRD two months ago. Where have they been since? Why can they not manage something as simple as: "We need a transportation authority bill"? It's perhaps somewhat ironic that the House Leader, of course, is the one who's the sponsor of that bill. If she can't figure out that we have to bring in these things in a timely fashion, then who will?

However, let me move on to other issues of management. It is a management issue that we're discussing this evening on the recess motion. Why can't this government listen not just to our advice -- we certainly pounded on this drum many times, and we'll continue to do so -- but also to what they do in many other jurisdictions? It's called a set parliamentary calendar.

In fact, it's interesting and of some note that around 7 o'clock this evening -- I didn't note exactly the time -- when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair, and there was another point of order raised, the Deputy Speaker made the point that there is "time wasted." Hon. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker's. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, one of our company has the floor and has been recognized as having the floor. Others can join the debate as their time comes along.

J. Dalton: The point I was making is that the Deputy Speaker, in reference to a comment or point of order that one of the members opposite made, made a comment about time wasted. So I think the government should take that into account too. They've wasted a heck of a lot of time.

Let's talk about the parliamentary calendar concept, hon. Speaker. We should start earlier. What's wrong with starting in February? Why do we start March 26 to bring in a budget and a throne speech all in four days? Then, of course, we need interim supply. Now we're at the end of June, and we need another interim supply bill. The government has mismanaged those issues. I don't know why they're hiding from the parliamentary agenda. I know there's very few photo ops in this chamber for the Premier, but he's probably off somewhere anyway, having a photo op as we speak.

Why could we not -- as they do, for example, in Ottawa -- sit until mid-June or the end of June, and then reconvene in the fall? Is there something wrong with the fall that the NDP has an aversion to it? We did it in 1992; that was to deal, of course, with another labour bill. So we do have a precedent from a previous NDP government to sit in the fall, but it doesn't seem that this one wants to accede to that concept.

I've even suggested that while we're here, we could schedule one or two regular night sittings until 8 or 9 o'clock. We don't have to do that on a regular basis as we're doing now. That's the issue that we come back to: the House Leader moves that we recess, and yet with proper planning, we shouldn't be sitting in the evenings. Or if we're sitting in the evenings, we should all know that we'll be doing that before we even get here -- not halfway through or at the end of June in a rush to hammer through the contentious bills -- and then, hopefully, adjourning for part of the summer. Personally, I see no reason why we couldn't have regularly scheduled night sittings.

Another thing. Why not every third or fourth week -- and perhaps in a bit this is where I'll come to my week off --

[ Page 9406 ]

I did have the opportunity last week to book out for a few days, hon. Speaker. I didn't have to worry about recess; I took sort of an extended recess, I guess. I took my family, and we went off through the Kootenays. We travelled through the ridings of many of the members opposite. I won't comment here on some of the things that were said.

An Hon. Member: Did you ever stop for a recess?

J. Dalton: We did stop for recess. I'm proud to say that when we checked into some of the motels, we turned on the parliamentary channel -- other than in Sicamous; it doesn't have it for some reason. We were able to watch members of both sides -- in fact, one of the significant things. . . . I tuned in one afternoon, I think probably last Wednesday, when the member for Chilliwack was on his feet talking about the four dairy-farming brothers in Chilliwack who have left this province. They've taken their dairy business and gone to Alberta. Now isn't that a surprise.

I can tell you, because I have the evidence, that when we went into restaurants and cafeterias throughout the West and East Kootenays, we could not find one that was serving British Columbia cream or milk for your coffee -- not one. All of the dairy products were from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; yet I saw a few dairy cows. So I assume what's happening is that they're taking the raw milk, shipping it across the Rockies, processing it -- our jobs, of course, being processed along with it in Alberta -- and the milk's coming back.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry. . . .

J. Dalton: And that's how this government manages.

The Speaker: Hon. member. The comments are straying quite far from the motion to recess.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I take your advice, and I want to give some advice to the government. My advice is to manage the affairs of this House and this province in a much better fashion than they have to date, particularly in this session. You know, I thought this session was actually going quite well for a while. In the last two weeks this session has got off the rails. What happened last Tuesday morning is clear evidence of it, and tonight we're now having to. . . .

Interjection.

J. Dalton: You're quite right. The member for Peace River North has corrected me; it was last Thursday morning. In fact, it was 11:32 a.m. I checked the Blues and it was 11:32 when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson made the motion to adjourn the House. That motion, of course, was in order and was accepted by the Speaker -- quite correctly. Neither one of the two government members opposite, both of them cabinet ministers -- one a parliamentarian in Ottawa for many years -- caught the point. One of them went off to have his ham sandwich. We're now here this evening dealing with the motion to recess. It's all connected, and it's all an issue of management.

Being one of the class of 1991 -- and I see some of the members opposite can also say they're members of the class of '91 -- I'm reminded in part of the 1993 session. That was a very interesting session, and again, one that required some management skills. As I recall, we had 80 bills, if not more, introduced in that session -- 80 bills. Yet we were able to get out of here by the end of July. It's also interesting, on a management issue, that some of the. . . .

Interjections.

J. Dalton: Now I can see that I have some of my colleagues from the class of '91 jumping in here. Perhaps some of us could appear on a certain TV talk show at a later date and deal with some of these issues.

One thing for the government to take note of -- and that's why I'm drawing their attention to the '93 session and a management issue -- is that some of the bills were allowed to die on the order paper. Six in total, as the House Leader points out. One, significantly, was Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act. It was that thick. Am I allowed to do that, hon. Speaker? That's not a prop. That thick, the bill was. That was a contentious piece of legislation. We spent many hours debating that. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it got to committee stage before it died on the order paper. I'm only suggesting to the government that they might like to consider, for example, that Bill 26 die on the order paper. They let Bill 44 slide last year. The reason I say that -- and this is, I hope, advice this government will take -- is that Bill 26 is harmful to the economy of this province. I heard that in the Kootenays just as you're hearing it in the streets of Vancouver and Victoria. We did finish at the end of July. I'm not so confident that we're going to finish this session at the end of July if we have to deal with contentious bills about labour, education and the Transportation Financing Authority, plus whatever else.

I must say I was a bit surprised today -- today being June 29; yes, I guess it still is -- that the Finance Minister brought in yet another budget bill. On a management issue, the Finance Minister -- who is also the House Leader -- in her budget back at the end of March, introduced some tax breaks that will be brought in. I'm just surprised that she had to wait until June 29, on a management function, to bring in that bill. I think that could have been done in a more timely fashion. Again, we're talking about management and the motion to recess, which is a management issue.

We wouldn't have to be debating motions of this nature if this government, and the cabinet in particular, could manage the people's affairs in a more timely and orderly fashion. Sure, there are going to be points of contention on both sides. That's why we're two and a half sword-lengths apart. That goes without saying. But I see no reason why, on behalf of the 3.5-4 million British Columbians, many of whom are taxpayers, that we can't do them a service and conduct the affairs of this province in a far more orderly fashion than what we've seen in the last few days and certainly what we're witnessing through motions such as the motion for a recess that the House Leader brought in at 6 o'clock. We shouldn't be sitting in the evenings, other than. . . . I seemed to get some agreement from the House Leader that if we organized these things in advance, and all 75 of us knew the schedule in advance, and if we agreed that we would be sitting every Thursday evening from March through June, you could schedule your life accordingly. But you can't do that with this government, because they don't manage things. They do a sort of knee-jerk, "Oh, gee, it's coming up to the middle or the end of June, and we've got some contentious bills we've got to take care of. . . ."

I see that the Education minister has now joined us, and that's very important. He certainly has to be criticized for the

[ Page 9407 ]

So these are all technicalities, I guess -- that seemed to be one argument. I read some comments in the aftermath of last Thursday morning -- in fact, I believe it was Ken Georgetti who suggested that what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson did was just a high school prank. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson used the legitimate rules of this House, which this government should respect, and I see that the Labour minister agrees. And yet some influential people who certainly have the ear, if not other things, of this government. . . . When he says it's a high school prank, you kind of wonder. Again, that's connected to Bill 26, which is, of course, the payback for the government.

[9:45]

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is up.

J. Dalton: I see that my time is up. I'll have other opportunities, no doubt.

M. Coell: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to offer some comments on the motion to recess. What it's about is time management. It's about the management of time by this government. To me, this House is all about the accountability of government. Government faces the people in this House; it doesn't necessarily face the opposition. We spent eight months in the past year outside of the House. We went for eight months during which this government was not accountable to the people through this House.

Time management, I think, is crucial in the future if this House is going to gain accountability and credibility with the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the debate is in the hands of the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

M. Coell: This House has legislative committees that don't meet. It does not have a parliamentary timetable. It doesn't have a weekly schedule. It doesn't have private members' bills that are debated. It doesn't have free votes. It doesn't have the credibility that it needs to serve the people of British Columbia. But, you know, the reason it doesn't have all these things is because this particular government wants to hide from the people of British Columbia.

The best way for this government to hide from the people of British Columbia is not to have a legislative calendar, not to have free votes, not to have a weekly schedule and not to let the opposition and the people of British Columbia know how it is going to do its business. So that's exactly what they want to do. They don't want to be accessible to the people of British Columbia. They don't want to manage their time properly. They want to take advantage of the people of British Columbia. They want to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia. So that's why we don't have any reform. That's why they don't manage their time properly. That's why we're not recessing -- because this government would love to recess and get out of this House. This government would love to hide, do all its bills in the next 18 hours, run away, scurry away. The reason we're here trying to make a point to this government is that they have to be accountable to people. They have to be accountable to the people of British Columbia. Every minute in this House is accountable to the people of British Columbia. This government doesn't care. This government would love to be out of the House and not here, or they would have had a legislative calendar. They would have had weekly times so that everyone knew what bills were coming up.

You know, it's not just that the government can fool the opposition by playing with bills, bringing one up here and one up there. What they're doing is saying to the people of British Columbia: "You don't matter. We don't want your input into labour legislation. We don't want your input into the Mental Health Act. We're just going to surprise the people because we don't care what they think." That's what the government is saying. The government is saying to the people: "We're going to manage this House to keep power. We're going to manage this House only to only keep power and to keep you and credibility out." But I've got to tell you that it's not good enough. This House deserves better. The people of British Columbia deserve better. If we have to debate a recess motion to make a point that this government isn't accountable to the people, it doesn't want to be accountable to the people. . . . You know, sometimes when a government doesn't want the people in the opposition to debate, to pick apart their legislation, they wait until it's late at night and everyone has turned their TV off, the reporters have gone home and the galleries have emptied; then they bring in the legislation that they really want to have.

You know, the agenda of this House is the people's agenda; it's not the NDP's agenda; it's not the Liberal agenda. This is a place where the government shows the people their legislation. We're here to pick it apart, to see whether it can be done better, to see whether anything can be added to it. But that's not what is happening.

We have Bill 26. We have Motion 50. We have a motion to try and sneak Bill 26 back on to the order paper. The people in British Columbia know what is going on. They know that the Minister of Finance fumbled the ball. They know that their House Leader fumbled the ball. Their Whip fumbled the ball, and two experienced cabinet ministers fumbled the ball. If the government really wants to put Bill 26 back on the order paper, I'm sure it will find a way. But, you know, it's all about how credible this government wants to be to the people of British Columbia. I don't think they do. Everything I have seen in the last two years up till tonight shows me that this government doesn't want to be credible and doesn't want the people of British Columbia to know what they're doing.

Interjection.

M. Coell: It is sad. The Minister of Finance says that it's sad, and it is sad, because the people deserve a good govern-

[ Page 9408 ]

An Hon. Member: How many years?

M. Coell: The last seven for sure.

The cabinet in this government is individually responsible for bringing in bills in a timely manner. As one of the speakers said, we've got a lot of housekeeping bills for a couple of months and we've got a few photo opportunities. But as soon as the sun comes out and summer is here, there's the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour with all their bills -- the real agenda. But, you know, you shouldn't be ashamed of your agenda. It's yours, and it's socialist; we know that. So you bring in a socialist agenda. But put it up front and let the people debate it in a timely manner. The recess motion that we're debating tonight is a point at which we're trying to say to you: "Why don't you have your agenda up front?"

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member.

M. Coell: The government business isn't keeping the government in power; it's doing the people's business in a timely manner. What we've got is a setup in this chamber where the people's business isn't being done, but the government's business of keeping itself in power is, by manipulating the agenda, by taking an agenda that should be timely and managed properly -- not managed for the opposition but managed for the people of British Columbia: the individuals, the community groups, labour, business. I don't think there's anything to hide in your agenda, so why do you? Madam Speaker, why does the government feel its agenda needs to be hidden?

Interjections.

M. Coell: I'll take my seat.

Interjections.

M. Coell: Madam Speaker, I thought the House Leader was going to object.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the member for Saanich North and the Islands has the floor.

M. Coell: I want to talk briefly about the eight months of the year that we're not here. That is very precious time. It is time that the government realize that they aren't accountable for just four months; they aren't accountable for just three months -- as they had one year. They're accountable all year. That's why a parliamentary schedule, a weekly calendar, is necessary: so that the people know you're accountable.

I know that many people in this chamber share a regret that politics and politicians are not held in high esteem. One of the reasons is because accountability is lacking. We have to have management that's accountable in order to have respect. We don't have that in British Columbia. I fear for this Legislature and the people in it -- that it won't get better until government reforms. We need sweeping reforms in this Legislature, and not for the 75 members; we need those reforms for the people of British Columbia, the people who want government to be accountable. They want to know what the time is spent on. Are there issues being talked about? Are they being debated? Can they look at the next month in advance and know what's going to go on?

In some respects, I think people are amazed to see what goes on with government, because government doesn't tell anyone what it's doing. I've got to tell you, that just simply isn't good enough. It isn't good enough for a group to get elected and then say: "We've got five years." Government has five years to be a dictator? I don't think that's what democracy is all about. As one member of the government said: "Government can do anything." I don't think that's what government is all about. Government is about acting in the best interests of all the people, not of your friends and insiders.

[10:00]

When the opposition tries to make a point to the government that they're making some grave errors, government should probably listen. It's not just the Liberal opposition that's telling government to change, telling government to manage their time better, telling them to be honest and upfront with their legislation, telling government to bring in a legislative calendar which people want. There is an opportunity right now for the government to come clean.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it's hard to hear.

M. Coell: I know that there are members in the back benches of this government who want change. They're not happy with the time frames that this government puts forward or with how the legislation is managed. They were elected to do the people's business, and they're being stymied. A very small group of people runs this government. They run it to keep power, not to do the people's business. Five years of a government that will continue to do that isn't going to work.

The government's opportunity here is great. It's time to reform, to rethink. It's time to bring credibility and accountability back to this House. It's time to debate the important issues of this House, to do the estimates, to debate the legislation that's been brought forward. What's more important, it's

[ Page 9409 ]

We've had three sessions since the election, and there's been no change in government behaviour. The bills come at the end of the agenda. The photo ops are interspersed. The adjournments come at the government's pleasure, whether they want to help their friends in a federal election or have a photo op on top of a mountain. They adjourn for their own benefit. Can you imagine that, Madam Speaker -- a government adjourning for their own individual party's benefit? Is that any way to run government? Is that any way to run a democracy or a legislature? All that tells the people of British Columbia is that here's a government that cares only about itself.

When the Premier, during the election, had a little sign saying "On Your Side," it wasn't that they were on the people's side; they were on their side. The NDP is on the NDP's side, not on the side of the people of this province. It's too bad, because this Legislature should be the centre of debate in this province. It should be a place where everyone in the province understands and knows how it will work, and it should not be open for manipulation. It should not be open to be manipulated by any government, whether it's an NDP or a Liberal government. It should be open for business for the people of British Columbia.

We on this side of the House are all saddened by the behaviour of this government -- saddened that they seem unable to rethink and reform and come forward with a new legislative package, with committees that work, with a parliamentary calendar and with weekly legislative calendars. There's a lot that the people of British Columbia deserve, which they're not getting, and we're spending $20 billion a year of their money -- not the government's money and not our money, but the people's money. This is the people's House, and it should be run for their benefit, not for the benefit of the governing party and not for the benefit of an ideology that feels it's so threatened that it must keep power.

This House is more important than the NDP and the Liberals and the Reform and all those parties before them. This House is important, not the parties. And it's up to. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Saanich North and the Islands take his seat. The member for Vancouver-Burrard rises on a point of order.

T. Stevenson: This is absolutely riveting, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. I'd ask the hon. Speaker to direct the hon. member to get back to the point.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. We're on the recess motion, date and timing. The hon. member will continue.

M. Coell: I appreciate the member standing up so I could have a glass of water and refresh my throat. We're talking about recess and about setting times. We're talking about suggested times for sitting and debate, and that's what I've been trying to say. We're making a point tonight about the failure of this government to address a problem this Legislature has.

I'm a believer that this Legislature is a great part of democracy, and that we're a great part of this province. Government is not respecting the people's needs or the people's work. The work of the people of British Columbia is not being respected in this House. Too often, we as opposition spend time worrying about why the government is structuring its agenda the way it is, but it always comes back to structuring its agenda for its own needs, its own ends. It doesn't give the people of British Columbia a chance.

To me, this change should come very quickly and very easily by the members of the NDP, but they don't seem to want to change. I don't know what it is. It's simple. We're out of date; we're behind the times. People want change. They want a whole range of change so that they can feel that we're accountable to them -- the people who pay our wages and whose money we spend. But, you know, it's going to come with or without this government. The things that we've been talking about -- calendars, legislative change, a structure and schedule -- are coming. They're going to come without this government, I'm afraid. This government will disappear into oblivion if it doesn't wake up and realize that British Columbians are demanding more out of government, not less. They want a government that sits at least twice a year and that's structured. They don't want a government that functions on warrants and supply bills. They want a government that's responsive to their needs. They're not getting it; they're simply not getting it.

I think some of the time-management things that I've suggested will help. I'm not suggesting that it's the be-all and end-all. There will always be room for improvement. But we have to make a start now. It's not just the opposition that's demanding it. The people of British Columbia are demanding change. They're demanding change of this government, and they're demanding that you do it now. Don't wait till they have a chance to throw you out -- because they're going to. They're going to throw out any government out that won't change, that is stuck in the past and rooted in its own ideology, at the expense of the people of British Columbia. That's what we have here. The motion to recess is a reminder to the government that change is needed -- that change and growth in this Legislature are a necessity for the future health of this Legislature.

You know, Madam Speaker, one of the things that makes democracy work is cooperation. The other thing that makes it work is trust. It may take a long time before the people of British Columbia trust this government again. But I've got to tell you that one of the things they can do to start down that road is cooperation. Far be it for me to help this government get re-elected. But I would like to see this House work a little better, because you're not just cooperating with the Liberals when you cooperate in this House. You're cooperating with the people of this province, with the people whose tax dollars you spend.

If you think that arrogance is the way to go, that arrogance is the wave of the future, that arrogance is going to get you re-elected, keep up the good work. I know differently. So do the people of British Columbia. We have a great province. We have an obligation to make it a greater province. Government doesn't have an obligation just to get re-elected; it has an obligation to make this province work together.

[ Page 9410 ]

This province needs more. It doesn't need old-style politics; it doesn't need the confrontation. It needs cooperation. The people need to see this House work and to see good debate, not debate in the middle of the night, not debate on issues that have long passed their time. They need to see reform of this Legislature.

I don't believe that this government wants to see its party fall apart. But they're on a road to self-destruction, and they don't see it. They don't see themselves through the eyes of the average British Columbian. I think we're trying to tell you that tonight. Madam Speaker, you've got some big problems with this government. There are some easy ways to change it; there are some ways to make it better. There are some ways that we can all gain some more self-respect.

This House is bigger than any party; this House is bigger than any individual in it. The people of British Columbia want this House to work, and they're going to elect people who make it work, who can manage their time. More than anything, they're going to elect people who manage the people's time with care, consideration and trust. I don't see that happening. I don't see the people's time being managed here. I don't see it being trusted or respected. I don't see a government that is in the least bit caring about all the people. It's easy to care about your friends and your family; it's a lot harder to care about everyone. It's a lot harder to govern for everyone than it is to govern for one's friends. People are sick to death of parties that govern for their friends and for insiders.

[10:15]

I've offered a number of suggestions. Without belabouring the point of the recess motion and Bill 26, which I think everyone realizes is the crux of why we're debating this motion tonight. . . . I truly believe that change needs to happen, and it needs to happen quickly in this House.

D. Jarvis: That was a marvellous speech that my friend just gave. It centred mostly on the arrogance and ignorance of the NDP, and that was probably one of the greatest things about it. But the fact is that no one over there heckled him. They all sat back and watched him. They were thinking deeply about what they are doing wrong and that he was right on the spot and on the ball all the time.

I'm getting up to discuss the motion to recess to 6:35 p.m. It's now approximately 10:18 p.m. One of my great problems with this government over these past years, especially since I was first elected, has been the arrogance of this government and the waste of time when we come over here to Victoria. The waste of time and money by this government over the years has been unbelievable.

There is a motion before us now to recess to 6:35 p.m. You may wonder why we are still debating this. Well, it's because we didn't know what was going to go on. This government is so arrogant that it failed even to advise us of the business plan for the day. Madam Speaker, this system that the NDP is preserving is archaic when it comes to getting work done in this province. It's about time that we settled down and had some type of calendar in front of us, so that we can tell everyone how. . . . We have to stop wasting time and get down to the specifics of working and passing bills.

I wish I had my diary here, because I could go through it right now and think of the time, this year alone, we have wasted so that the Premier could go out for a photo op -- or he has told us to take a few days off. Here we are. We're going to be here this week for two days: Monday and Tuesday. Sometime Tuesday we'll probably adjourn. Why? Why can't we work Wednesday? Why can't we work Thursday? Why can't we work Friday? I can't even hear myself speak. Let's have some order in here, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, it's obviously what you have heard from everyone in the room tonight: we definitely need a legislative calendar -- there's no question whatsoever -- so that we can set up a proper business plan. It just amazes me. We came in here and sat down, and the government threw a bill here, threw a bill there -- never with any set procedures for what we were going to do. I was told when I first came here, back in '91-92, that we would have a six-day debate on the throne speech, and then we'd have a six-day debate on the budget speech. It seems that like every year I've come here -- this year as well -- on March 26, five days before the budget has to be passed, we have a throne speech and a budget speech thrown at us. Instead of having 12 days to debate, we sit there with about five days to debate -- and not thoroughly debate -- the situation in this province.

This province is in trouble. Recessing is just a waste of time when we could be sitting down and doing the people's work without delays and holidays by the Premier. Every couple of weeks we go away on a holiday. Since March, I doubt if we've sat more than two or three weeks in all that time -- almost the last four months -- all the way through. For some reason or another, there's always been an extra holiday or an extra day thrown in for a superfluous debate on some item that fits in with the NDP philosophy. Nothing is debated in this House unless it's for the NDP's benefit -- not for the people's benefit.

If we had set up legislation so that it could be properly perused by the public and ourselves, that would be a lot better than the system we have now. As I said before, we've already heard many times tonight that a parliamentary calendar is required. That was part of our platform last election, and it will be part of the platform this coming election. We know that this government will certainly not put it into their platform, because they work under a different premise. The work that they do is always subject to the fact that. . . . Anything would be beneficial in their work habits. Of course, some of them have probably never held down a job in which they could really work hard, but some of them have.

We've always had delays in here. What are we doing here, pushing on midnight, debating. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the noise is getting a little raucous. Member, continue.

D. Jarvis: As I said before, what are we doing debating a bill on recess, pushing on towards midnight? This has hap-

[ Page 9411 ]

I can remember back in '92, when the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was in your spot as Speaker of the House. At that time the now Minister of Energy and Mines was the Minister of Forests, and he had the audacity to stand up at 11:45 p.m. to debate a bill. I became incensed. That was the first time that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon kicked me out of this House -- literally kicked me out of this House. It was a shock. I was in a state of shock, but I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, that I accomplished something: I shut down that bill. That was a good thing, because that was not the way to do business in this province -- at 11:45 p.m. Besides that, the member who was our forestry expert at the time wasn't even in the House; he was out of town, on business. They don't do anything unless it is to their benefit.

As I said, we should start off with a procedure of having a throne speech, which we would debate for six days. We should have a budget speech following that and debate it for six days -- not just four or five days before the budget has to be passed or have another supply bill, like we're going to be doing tomorrow. I assume that anytime after about 9 o'clock tomorrow morning they will start to get worried, because they have run out of money, and they will not be able to operate unless they have supply by the end of this month. Again, we'll be debating -- in the last minute. It's almost as though they don't even understand how government is run. When you have a business, you do not all of a sudden decide that you want to make something, so you have to buy supplies for it. You plan ahead for it. You have to have a business plan in order to succeed in this world today.

The government waits until there's an exhaustion period -- on their part, mostly -- and then they bring in a bill. As they mentioned earlier, I think it was a Thursday night when we were sitting, and it was about 9 o'clock again when they brought in the mental health bill. One of the biggest problems that we have today is in regards to people with mental health problems. It was a contentious bill. They brought this in at night, around 9 p.m., when it could not get a full debate.

We have a government that is not really interested in setting up a legislative calendar so that we can do things properly in this House, so that we can function. We wonder why they're doing it. Instead of having fixed sittings, we're in this unhealthy atmosphere, debating at all hours of the night a subject that is really very superfluous and not worthwhile. It's a debate that we're having on recess. Recess and management: those are the key words. For anything I say in the future, you have to think "recess" with it -- in case I do stray, Madam Speaker. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we?

People do want to see stability in this province, and they don't have it with this government. We don't have a plan, and we waste time. Taking recesses, unnecessary recesses -- whether it be a day or three days or four days, like we have been doing all this year. . . . Instead of getting down to business, we have been twiddling our thumbs as far as legislation in this House goes. As I said, the Premier is off doing photo ops here and doing photo ops there. As a matter of fact, I was going to mention about his. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up.

The Premier now has invited nine smelters and one battery company to come into British Columbia. He's got eight aluminum companies, one silicon and one battery company coming here, hopefully. I don't think we have enough power for them, but that's what the Premier is doing. He goes off on these great trips and makes these announcements, and nothing seems to happen, unfortunately. He has been successful on a couple of things lately; there's no question of that. He's continuing on his plane of spending money, and we know that he's going to start spending the money which is, in essence, a waste of time, and this is the time. . . . We should have a recess every time he leaves the House.

[10:30]

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: Madam Speaker. . . .

We have so many problems in this province that we haven't dealt with over this last year, through time wasted. We have a lot of concerns. We have people leaving this province. There's an exodus of young men and women leaving this province, because our unemployment rate is way in excess of 17 percent now, they say. It's pushing 20 percent. We have tens of thousands of people and families. . .

The Speaker: Relevance, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: . . .out of work, because they are unable to take a recess.

The Speaker: Relevance to the recess motion. The member will take his seat. Thank you. I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would remind the member that we're debating recess, a great Canadian tradition. As much as the member's comments about the economy and that are interesting, the real issue is recess. If he would stick to recess, I think the rest of the House would be more than willing to pay attention.

The Speaker: Having also reminded the member. . . .

D. Jarvis: You have to consider that we're doing a debate about recess, which is a waste of time. Management is the key word in this. So when this government does not handle the province's business in a proper time and in a proper manner, this is a waste of time. That's why, when we're discussing recess, the problem is that this government is not organizing the nation's business the way it should be done.

Our capital spending in this province is declining, and that's happening only in several areas other than British Columbia. Those are the maritime provinces, which are having big troubles. B.C.'s taxes and labour laws do not make investors around the globe want to come in here. So we have a waste of time in this going out and seeking smelters to come to British Columbia to do all these memorandums of agreement or understanding. Then they look at British Columbia and say: "Why would we want to come to British Columbia?" Over 145 companies have already left British Columbia in this last year. This Premier is trying to organize this province to bring industry and investment into the province and has tried

[ Page 9412 ]

Business people are fleeing British Columbia, and the government has made no effort to find out why companies are leaving. Companies are leaving because of the government's anti-business attitude, first of all. And the taxation is so high that they are choosing not to invest in this province. Companies will look at this situation and say: "How can we possibly find British Columbia attractive when the government cannot even run its business properly? It wastes time."

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yes -- recessive, as the member for West Vancouver-Capilano says.

We wonder what is going to happen to this province when we have no parliamentary or legislative or business plan. We don't have an economic plan. It's quite disconcerting. I mentioned earlier that small businesses are upset with the way this province is run. We don't have a business plan that could be added to the legislative plan for this parliamentary. . . . We could put forward bills of great importance that would assist in the economic recovery of this province, and yet we don't see them around. All we see are labour bills coming in, which are put forward at the wrong time and which would only disturb and disrupt the economics of this province -- bad labour laws.

We've got so many problems in this province that it's unbelievably bad. We have large mills and mines throughout this province that are in a state of. . .

An Hon. Member: Disrepair.

D. Jarvis: . . .not disrepair, as one of the members said, but in a state of economic crisis. They have such heavy taxation. We have a world market in which prices have dropped, which is affecting them, and we have the red tape and taxes on top of that.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The basis of it. . . . A lot of these companies, like different mining companies that I know of, are very electricity-intensive businesses; they require a lot of power. The situation is such that this government gives these companies a large break in the industry to make them maybe not completely competitive, because of the world market conditions. . . . But at least it would save the hurt a bit, and perhaps they would stay open and keep that employment going. But we're looking around at mines all over this province that are starting to feel the real pinch. It's getting to the point of being quite dangerous. This government put through a bill on mining, the right to mine act, back on April 21, and that was good. There are certain aspects of that which will probably benefit a lot of people once they get the rules and regulations up and going. But it may be too late. We have big mines like Gibraltar up there in the Cariboo that are electricity-intensive, and they pay more money for electricity than B.C. Hydro charges people down in the United States -- people who are down there opening up aluminum mills in Washington State using B.C. power and creating jobs in the United States instead of back here in Canada.

If we had had the opportunity to sit in this House to go over bills through, say, a committee system, and sit down and call experts in to go over them and give us advice -- probably a lot more intelligent advice than what the government is getting from their so-called experts, who are probably political hacks, anyway. . . . Due to the fact that they've gone so deep into the bureaucracy with their own political friends, one must question where the advice is coming from -- i.e., Mr. Gunton and all the rest of it; you know, the ones that go out and work on the campaigns for you that are now the deputy ministers and the assistant deputy ministers. And down, down they go.

Anyway, it probably is. . . . That member over there will probably go down in history as the minister that failed to realize that the end of Bill 26 was coming -- the member who knew everything. I can remember when he first arrived here.

An Hon. Member: He was schooled in Ottawa.

D. Jarvis: Yeah, he's a federalist, this NDP guy, who arrived in British Columbia. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Relevance, member. Relevance to the debate, please.

D. Jarvis: Probably the first thing he said when he stood in the House here was that he wanted to recess. He stood up in the House all the time and corrected the Speaker day after day. It was rather interesting. He doesn't remember that now. He knew the rules, and we in British Columbia didn't know the rules. Well, now he knows the rules. He's learned the hard way.

It'll be a day of infamy, as they say, when they hear about Bill 26 in the future. There was Vesuvius and there was Pearl Harbor, but in B.C. it will be Bill 26. It will go down in infamy, because all these debates will be recorded, and everyone will remember. The Minister of Small Business. . . . Now, where is his riding? Oh yeah, Vancouver-Fraserview. He will be remembered as the minister that was in the House on that day of infamy when Bill 26 crashed to the ground and then they tried to come back with a motion, Motion 50.

It's rather funny. They contended that the debate was adjourned because of a technical error by our friend the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. They said that his motion to adjourn was not by design. Well, if you knew that member, he doesn't do anything by accident; he is a conniver. And he did it by design; there is no question whatsoever about that. He knew that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview didn't have a clue about the rules in British Columbia. The night before, when he got up and said, "Madam Speaker, I would like to adjourn," there weren't any ministers in the House; it was just full of backbenchers. But they were a lot smarter; they called a division. That's all he had to do: call a division. He missed it. It went right over his head, and it was kind of frightening to watch that happen.

Anyway, that is probably getting away from what the debate is, and I certainly didn't mean to do that. I am concerned, because we have been asked to recess, and we all know that when we do something like that, there has got to be a reason down the line for it. Yet we have never, up to this time -- which is now 10:40 at night -- been told what the purpose is for what we're doing right now. We know what we're doing. We made a motion to adjourn the debate on Bill 26. He didn't know what we were doing, and that's why we're here tonight, because he didn't know the rules. And then they have to sit back -- whereas every other parliament across Canada would look at the situation and say: "The bill is dead; there's no question. We'll have to either come up with a new

[ Page 9413 ]

[10:45]

But not with this government. This government insists on doing everything the hard way. All they have to do is tell us what their plans are, what bills they have coming forward. We'll sit down and do the estimates properly. No, this government always does things a little bit differently.

An Hon. Member: Backwards.

D. Jarvis: Just about backwards. They're still moving forward, but at a very slow pace. That's what it is.

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned that with this government, this province's credit rating and its job losses are being affected drastically. It's the fact that this government is not organized, and if we had a. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

D. Jarvis: Oh, I see the red light is on. All right.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the motion to recess until 6:35 that was put to the House earlier this evening. There's been a considerable amount of discussion tonight about parliamentary calendars and trying to use the time in the House to the best advantage for the people that we're here to represent. I think that that's kind of the message we're trying to bring forward to the government at this late hour in the evening.

The government of the day, as was explained, miscued on Thursday, even though they had a relatively senior cabinet minister in the House; he seemed to be asleep at the switch. The other one was a member that was elected in 1991, the same time I was, and was actually a runner-up to our present Premier for the leadership of the NDP. He seemed able only to think about going for a ham sandwich at the time. I hate to think what would have happened to the province had that person been elected as leader of the NDP.

Since I've been fortunate enough to be elected to this Legislature, these are certain issues that we've talked about at length. We have had a number of private members' bills put forward and have had discussions between the official opposition and the government, and between third parties and government, about attempting to set up a calendar so that all members could actually plan some of the activities they would be taking on in their constituencies. It's probably a little more important to a person such as myself or the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke or even the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. It would be nicer for us -- we who have to travel quite a ways -- to be able to plan our time effectively and be able to work effectively in our constituencies, rather having to work to a system that sometimes seems very archaic, even to us -- although we work here all the time. It seems very archaic to people out on the street who don't understand what's going on. If I were someone on the street and had not paid any attention to parliamentary procedure, I guess I'd probably be wondering what was going on tonight too. If I had my TV turned on and was listening to this debate, I'd be saying: "What in the world are those folks doing in there?" It just begs the question that there has to come a time when some government has the absolute guts, I guess, to stand up and say: "Yes, we are going to change some of the archaic rules that this House works around."

There have been all kinds of presentations made to governments -- past governments, this government. This government has been in power now for seven long, long, long, long years. Absolutely unbelievable! It's too long to imagine. As I went back and read some of the Hansards from when they were on this side of the House, some of it was rather interesting. Although I don't think any of the members who were elected prior to 1991 are in the House right now, there were representations made to the government of that day that there should be a timetable. People should know when they're here and when they can actually go home, when they can actually be in their constituencies talking to the people who they represent -- the people who elected them to come to this House.

It would probably bode well for the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, who happens to read his book in here all the time. He could be back home talking to his constituents about how and why there were no doctors in the north, about how and why it took this government six to eight weeks -- whatever it was -- to finally address the issue of a doctor shortage in the northwest. I guess he would actually have time to plan his trips, so he could go on scheduled airlines. That would be a really novel idea. It would be a brand-new, novel idea for that member to actually schedule his time, so he could be in his constituency to deal with the doctor situation. I will move back to the motion to recess, as I digress just a moment from this important issue.

While I was sitting here listening to the debate, I looked at the Speech from the Throne from this year. It's an interesting document. It says -- and we just celebrated it: ". . .the hundredth anniversary of the opening of our parliament buildings and the first sitting of the Legislature within these walls." Wouldn't it have been fitting for the government today, which used to sit in opposition and said they wanted a parliamentary calendar so that they could do the business of this House right, to have started off the next 100 years with a novel idea like: "Let's do something that we talked about a long time ago. Let's bring in a parliamentary calendar. Let's start deciding what we're going to do. Let's actually get the people's business out in front of the people"? Wouldn't that be a novel idea for a government that sat so sanctimoniously over on this side of the House not that long ago and talked about it? It would be an interesting process -- instead of just putting it into a Speech from the Throne -- if they would actually do something that they used to talk about.

It's no wonder that people view politicians the way they do. They have good reason to do that, in many cases. They listened intently to what the opposition used to say -- the NDP, the socialists -- about wanting a calendar, wanting to know what legislation was coming forward. So they probably thought: "By golly, there might be a bit of a glimmer here, just a narrow little crack, that the socialists will actually live up to

[ Page 9414 ]

One should wonder about that, because I remember reading what was called the Harcourt manifesto. What did it say? "No more friends or insiders." I think that was promise No. 4.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Was that No. 1? There you go -- the No. 1 promise was no more friends or insiders. Well, we've had more friends and insiders on that side of the House than we could ever have imagined there would be. Actually, it's pretty disgusting.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member behind me says: "We didn't realize they had that many friends." I think he's exactly right. They didn't have that many friends in British Columbia. Do you know what they did? They searched Canada. They went all the way over to the east coast and found all kinds of people over there. They went to the Yukon and found people up there. They went to the Northwest Territories and found people up there -- all over Canada. In fact, I'm not too sure that they didn't bring some in from someplace else. They filled 'er, let me tell you, with friends and insiders.

Another promise that they made. . . .

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: You can always tell when you hit a chord, because they get a little chirpy. You can always tell when you're hitting home.

Then they said: "Open and honest government." That was one of the promises in the Harcourt manifesto. I looked for that tonight, and I just couldn't find it. I'm sure it's around someplace. But I can remember quite a few of the promises that were in there, and most British Columbians are pretty disappointed that this government didn't live up to any of them.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Open and honest deal-making is right -- at its best.

This whole group of socialists over here, every one of them, are the financial wizards of the eighties and the nineties, as I call them. They're the folks who drove us into debt, who have driven business out of the province. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour talked about 150 businesses that have left this province. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism should be really happy about that. I wonder if he, too, was asleep at the switch when that happened. Is that what happened to those businesses? Is that why they're gone?

Imagine that you were a young person and you looked at the Speech from the Throne of March 26, 1998. If you went through it looking for something in there to do with employment for youngsters, for young people, you would find a note in here. . . . I'm just trying to find it. I'm sure that you've perused this yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it's really difficult. There's so much good news in here that it's sometimes hard to find the piece that you want.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps you could find the part in there that relates to the debate we're having on the recess.

R. Neufeld: I will. I'm talking to the motion to recess. I'm talking about a calendar, a promise from a government to bring in a calendar and those kinds of things.

A young person would come along and see in one section: "My government will increase funding for youth employment programs and provide more opportunities for young people to access job and training programs." Was that the 1,500 campsites that were promised? Actually, let me get my arithmetic right: they promised 1,500 campsites in the budget -- not in the throne speech, but in the budget -- but 500 of them would have been built this year and 1,000 next year. That's what this group is great with. At the same time, they say they're going to close 800 others. When you do the math to figure that out, you've gone in the hole. To talk about the motion to recess, hon. Speaker, I am on tap. The Minister of Employment and Investment just came back, but I'm talking about the issues that are facing British Columbians today because we don't have a parliamentary calendar to run this House.

When you look in the tool chest that the official opposition has to be able to deal with issues as they come forward in the House, you find that we have to use these kinds of small tools, one of which we're using tonight, to actually get our message out.

[11:00]

R. Neufeld: And the member says: "Are you getting your message out?" I'll tell you, mister, the message is out there, and it's you that's missing it, because you keep your head buried in here.

It's time that we got serious about introducing into the House a legislative calendar so that we can get away from dealing with these kinds of motions -- motions of recess, Motion 50, all that kind of debate around an issue where the government actually. . . . We're doing that because the government dropped the ball. They didn't know what they were doing; they weren't sure what they were doing. We could easily, if we had a parliamentary calendar set up. . . . It has been presented to the government, but the government turned it down. Legislation would be presented, and it would be debated in a fall session. We would start earlier in the year, and we would debate the estimates so that we would be out of the House early in the spring. We made that offer to the government, saying that we knew that it would be a change -- a complete change -- that people in the province of British Columbia actually want.

Guess what. The government turned it down. They said: "No way. No show. We don't want to do that." When we look back, it's interesting how conveniently the government can recess this House for its own agenda. When did we recess? We just recessed the House. . . . Well, we didn't; we don't have control over that. It's the government that recessed the House to go to Kamloops, to have a little photo op, to do a little bit of perusing around there talking to people about maybe bringing more aluminum smelters into the province. I'm not exactly sure what they did there.

An Hon. Member: A little politicking.

R. Neufeld: Exactly. A little politicking was the biggest part of it, because I didn't read much in the newspapers about anything good coming out of that.

[ Page 9415 ]

Let's look back to last year and the convenience of recessing the House. There were some issues around the recessing of the House last year, and it was for the jobs and timber accord announcement -- the one that was actually announced and was going to create, I believe, something like 20,000 or 30,000 new jobs. It's hard to remember these numbers after a while. You never really know what's fact or fiction anymore, so one doesn't pay all that much attention to it. One thing we did learn a year later is that they actually lost 12,000 jobs. What a record. After recessing the House so the Premier and a few of the cabinet ministers could fly off to Prince George, have a little photo op and talk about all the jobs they were going to create with the jobs and timber accord, one year later we're missing 12,000 jobs. That should be the last time we ever let this group of wizards recess to go someplace to talk about creating jobs. Every time they do that, we lose them. You know, you go someplace, and you say you're going to create 20,000 or 30,000 jobs; a year later you've lost them all.

An Hon. Member: Poof!

R. Neufeld: Yeah, poof. Poof the Magic Dragon -- they're gone. One wonders if we shouldn't have tighter rules around here so you folks can't leave this place. You should maybe stay in here year-round.

An Hon. Member: Every time we recess, you lose another 10,000 jobs.

R. Neufeld: Yeah. You know, if you keep this up, folks, we'll be in worse shape than we are today. Alberta will really be clapping its hands. So, Mr. Speaker, it becomes more evident all the time that when we talk about a motion to recess, parliamentary calendars and how we should be running the business of the House become more and more important.

Lo and behold, the other issue last year for which I recall the NDP recessing the House was the federal election so they could go home and work for their federal counterparts. Quite interesting. I remember speeches in the House talking about federal elections. That's got nothing to do with what goes on in this Legislature. That's the last thing that this Legislature should be used for. But the NDP found it convenient to all of a sudden take a few days off so they could go home and beat the streets and hang some signs for a few federal NDP counterparts of theirs.

Hon. Speaker, that's another very good reason why we need a parliamentary calendar to run this House. We need to have a calendar that's open and honest and puts before the people of British Columbia a legislative agenda, so that people actually know in good time what the government of the day, regardless of who it is. . . . People would actually know what's going to happen. That's all part of a motion to recess. Some of that is an archaic system that we should change.

If you go to the throne speech -- and I read through the throne speech again tonight; it's just great reading -- nowhere in here is it mentioned that we were going to have another labour bill brought forward -- nowhere in the throne speech. They talked about workplace hazards. They talked about that, and they brought that forward. But when you talk about anything to do with resurrecting Bill 44 or bringing in a new bill, Bill 26, there is no mention of it.

That's why we have to have a calendar. We have to have an agenda so government will actually have to honestly say: "In this session, these are the bills we're going to bring forward. We're going to leave enough time so these bills can be debated to their fullest and so the people of the province have time to look at them -- actually have a summer to look at them seriously and decide whether they like them or not." Instead of bringing bills in at the ninth hour and running around the clock. . . . Hon. Speaker, you and I have both been through that, where this House runs right through the night. This could be another one of those nights. I'm not sure; we're not sure. But we may go through the night, and we may go all day tomorrow, and we may go the next day. Or we could quit at midnight, or we could quit in the next five minutes. Who knows? But there you go, hon. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Stop, stop.

R. Neufeld: The member says stop. In the next five minutes he wants to stop. But that's the uncertainty of what the opposition is up against, and that's the uncertainty that people out there listening to this debate are trying to figure out -- what's going on.

Hon. Speaker, it was interesting to listen earlier to some of the members talking about the difficulty that we have in trying to get issues dealt with in this House through the committee system. That's part of what should be working -- with a parliamentary calendar. Part of what we should be doing in a parliamentary calendar is actually using our committees -- not the way we do today, with just a few of them. I think there are probably, at the very most, three or four that may get used. The rest are just lying there dormant; they're never used.

But if we used the committee system. . . . If we actually had the committee system so that they could go out and take legislation, whatever it would happen to be, out to the people of British Columbia, you could actually try to explain it to them. I don't say that we'd always be able to explain the NDP's legislation. But we could attempt to and let the people around the province decide whether they agree with some of this, instead of having it presented at the eleventh hour, then running all night so we can get some of this legislation through.

Had members of this House been aware of some of the standing rules in this Legislature and, I guess, in the federal House -- it's in the British parliamentary system -- on what takes place when you adjourn debate or adjourn the House, they would have realized what actually took place. That was one of the small tools that we had to be able to bring more attention to a piece of legislation that will further destroy British Columbia's economy.

After that, the motion that was put forward. . . . I guess the arrogance of the NDP, of the socialists -- "We can just, you know. . . ." I don't know. They huddle, and I guess they say: "We could do anything we want." Who was it? It was the Minister of Forests who said: "We're government. We can do whatever we want." You talk about arrogance; you talk about pushing your agenda onto people without even listening to them. Really, what government should be doing is listening to

[ Page 9416 ]

An Hon. Member: And processed elsewhere.

R. Neufeld: . . .and processed elsewhere, as the member says. They just wanted out of here.

And here we are -- in this mess that we're in today. This is the way we have to get our message out. You want to talk about difficulty. . . . We have all kinds of difficulty trying to get this message out.

I'm sure that the Minister of Small Business and Tourism will be very happy, as was said earlier, that his name will go down in history as being the most learned -- or maybe not the most learned, but supposedly the most experienced -- member of the House to let a motion like that slide by. It's interesting that he would let that slide by.

Here we are at the end of June. In early July we're going into Committee of Supply -- very soon, I guess. We're going to have to; it's either that, or they're going to have to work on warrants. Whichever they want to do, they can. But you know the arrogance of the NDP. They'll just say: "We'll write cheques. We'll get out the chequebook -- the people's chequebook. We'll write another cheque, and away we go."

[11:15]

You know, a number of years ago in my constituency -- and in fact it was just declared again; I read it in the Speech from the Throne -- there was a decision made to protect the Northern Rockies wilderness. That's a third of my constituency; it's the size of Nova Scotia. There were all kinds of competing interests, whether it was mining, oil and gas, forestry, hunting, fishing -- you name it. All of those people were at the table; they were all there to discuss those issues. They discussed those issues for a number of years and actually came to a conclusion. Now, not all of them liked everything that came through. But after dealing with all the issues, those very varied groups made a decision that this is what they'd like to see with the Northern Rockies.

So what I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, is that in fact those kinds of decisions can be made if you sit down in a rational way, if you lay out the agenda and if nobody is coming to the table with hidden agendas -- "We're going to spring this or that on you." They came with their concerns; they talked about their concerns; they worked their concerns out. And there we have it: the Northern Rockies.

The difficulty with the Northern Rockies was keeping the previous minister. . . . I'm not sure if it was the previous minister, because it's hard to keep up with this group over here as to who was the minister when. But it's the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. He's been in a number of portfolios over there.

An Hon. Member: In and out.

R. Neufeld: Yeah, he's been in and out fairly quickly. He's just sliding around like a watermelon seed. But he's now sitting on the back bench.

When he was Minister of Environment, he tried to declare the Northern Rockies before these people had even finished their discussions. That's where it falls apart, you see, because he was driving at a personal agenda, a personal thing that he wanted done, at high speed. He didn't care who he trampled on. Let me tell you that we just about had to tie this person down so he wouldn't stand up on some platform and try to make some announcement about the Northern Rockies long before he should have.

But it's proven that if you can keep people like the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin quiet, if you can keep him or some of those folks that really have a different agenda. . . . They're socialists. They just want to drive their own agenda, exactly what they believe in and what no one else believes in. But it was difficult at best. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise tonight to join in the debate on the motion to recess and to state again why we should not recess the House. This is because of the abuse of this House by the government. The government wants to bring back Bill 26, the labour bill, when clearly it was dropped from the order paper because of the incompetence of two government members -- cabinet ministers, no less.

The Liberal member for Kamloops-North Thompson properly moved a motion last Thursday to adjourn the House during second reading debate on Bill 26. The government was caught napping; they weren't paying attention. Indeed, one government member was contemplating lunch. I believe it was a ham sandwich that he was dreaming of. That's okay; I enjoy a ham sandwich too. But business is business. Clearly government members were not paying attention to the business of this House. But that's not new, hon. Speaker.

We have work to do here. Constituents expect us to be doing the people's business. We have estimates to complete, ministry budgets to pass and legislation to debate. People have a right to expect the government to manage the business of this House in a competent manner. But unhappily, that is not the case, and that is why we're debating this motion this evening.

There are many instances of the lack of management abilities of this government. Let's look at the parliamentary reform issue. Virtually all of the other provinces in Canada and the federal government have moved to modernize their parliaments. Their examples are a fixed parliamentary calendar, balanced-budget legislation, truth-in-budgeting legislation and an improved committee system. Now, members on this side of the House have talked extensively tonight about these initiatives. I hope the government is listening, because there are a lot of things they could learn, particularly about balanced-budget legislation -- balancing the budget truthfully and reducing the salaries of ministers who exceed their allotted budgets. That would go a long way, I think, to keeping government accountable.

That truth-in-budgeting legislation has opened honest accounting practices on the part of this government is debatable. What the government needs to do is look at keeping their books the way everyone else keeps theirs: they can't hide the real deficit or debt from the public, and their financial statements are truthful and easily understood. That's what they

[ Page 9417 ]

These are the debates we must have, and these are the issues this House must address -- the kinds of basic changes that will make this place work better, the kinds of systemic reforms that most people and certainly members on this side of the House believe are long overdue. But that won't happen when the government acts in an arrogant and arbitrary way, as they have done today. We should be debating issues of concern to our constituents. Here we are debating a motion to recess when we should be talking about the very serious issues of the day, like Bill 26, the labour bill, which is a reincarnation of Bill 44. Instead, we're talking about the mismanagement of the legislative agenda.

There are other issues we need to talk about: the government's red tape for small businesses is something we've talked about in this chamber and the NDP's amendments to the Workers Compensation Act that contradict their budget promise to create a friendlier climate for small business. These are issues that we could be debating as well. Now the government has put in place a committee to look at red tape. Only an NDP government could do that: create more red tape with the stated view of eliminating red tape.

The mismanagement of the order paper of this government continues daily. There are ways that this chamber's business can be improved, and we have talked about some of them. We've discussed them on this side of the House. We've asked and begged the government to consider a better use of the committee system. We've said that there are things that don't need to be brought prematurely to the floor of the House -- or at least, there needs to be a time when they can be better considered. We've seen many pieces of legislation that could have benefited from the committee process. So let's look at the committee system and make this place function better than it has in the past.

Members on this side of the House have talked about the need for a legislative calendar. Since 1991, B.C. Liberals have tried to convince the government to implement fixed sitting days. Again, progressive governments all across the country understand efficient, effective and economic principles -- principles this government cares nothing about. If this government did understand, we would not be debating a motion to recess.

These are the kinds of basic, fundamental changes that make sense. That takes leadership, which is not coming from this government. It is the mismanagement of the House that forces us to have this debate at this hour, because the government is trying to manipulate Bill 26 back on to the order paper. Yet members of that government, the NDP side of the House, steadfastly refuse to consider those basic and fundamental reforms that would make the people's House a more functional place.

They are the kinds of changes that the families of all members would welcome: fixed sitting days for families to plan, for proposed legislation to have wide exposure and debate and for the people's business to be done in an effective and productive manner. But that will not happen with this government. This government has said it can do whatever it wants, and that is why we are debating the sitting time this evening. Because the government acts in an arrogant and arbitrary way, the business of the House is compromised.

Private members' bills. There should be an opportunity for this House to debate public bills in the hands of private members. If we could do that, we would get better legislation. The fact is that we are here tonight because the government has mismanaged this session, the economy and this government so badly that there is no agenda, and legislation after legislation has shown that. We have private property rights that are under attack because of legislation from the other side of the House. We have people in communities all across this province who are concerned about the kinds of impositions this government has brought, particularly in the areas of forestry and mining. The environment is under attack. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that in my community in the last week, we have seen a significant impact on fisheries. I know all members of the House are aware of that. This is one of the areas where the government needs to take some leadership -- much more leadership.

Backroom deals that this government is implementing have become a way of doing business. The teachers' contract that will be coming up for debate in this House in a short time is another issue the government has clearly shown they have a blatant disregard for -- the collective bargaining process. There's example after example.

There should be an opportunity for the House to debate the changes in a legislative calendar, which needs to happen. The only thing that's on the minds of this government is imposing their rules and only their rules. This debate is all about arrogance on the part of government and not about improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government. If it was, government would show leadership and address the important changes that are needed, which I have outlined. The government continues to mismanage the business of this House and should be condemned for the blatant disregard of the legislative process.

We have a government that is so inept and so incompetent that they're costing British Columbians hundreds of millions of dollars in lost investment and thousands of jobs. We have an NDP government that believes that if it is politically expedient, that is exactly what they will do. This side of the House totally rejects the way this government does the people's business. This side of the House believes the people's parliament should be managed in an efficient, effective and economic manner. When my party is government -- and it will be -- that is exactly what will happen.

D. Symons: I note that the time is 11:30. As time goes on this evening, I'm quite sure that the motion to adjourn the House until 6:30 will become relevant again.

I was first elected in 1991, and one of the first impressions I had of this particular government was the fact that they leave everything to the last moment. They did it in '92 and have done ever since. They leave it to the night of the end of the fiscal year and then decide: "Hold it! We have to pass some spending authority. We need interim supply." Then they go well into the night to force the spending through with as little debate as they can get away with. That was my first impression and my first experience in the Legislature with the incompetence of this NDP government. At least, I chalked it up then to incompetence.

In the following seven years, it has not changed at all. Again, a day before the government needs interim supply, they're introducing a contentious motion to reintroduce a bill that dropped off the order paper last week. One would think they would ensure that they got their priorities straight and would ensure, in a timely fashion, that they would have spending authority for the next three months. But no. They decided that they'll push the reintroduction of the Labour

[ Page 9418 ]

[11:30]

Government by pressure or by incompetence -- either way, it is the wrong way to do the people's business. As has been mentioned by others, we need an organization of legislative business in this Legislature so that we won't get into the situation that we are currently in this evening, which we've pretty well had in each of the seven years that I have been speaking in this House. We need a legislative calendar that will set a starting date for the legislative session. This year we met for the first time on March 26, I believe -- the latest sitting in the history of this legislative chamber. They began two or three or four days before the end of the fiscal year. That's about the end of it, if you take out the weekend.

That is totally irresponsible. It's more than irresponsible; it's wrong for the government to do the people's business in that sort of way, where they force through the budget and the throne speech at the last moment. This government tries to do everything by pressure, but in so doing, they are negating the real purpose of this legislative chamber. That purpose, of course, is to do the people's business in an effective, reasoned and rational manner. That is something that this government, in seven years of misgoverning this province, has not been able to do.

We've encouraged the government. . . . I must say that it is good of the opposition to have helped the government move forward the business of this legislative chamber. Over the years we have had the estimates going on in two locations of the House. The introduction of that a few years back was novel; that had not happened before. By having those estimates debates in two places, we have compressed, in a sense, the legislative calendar. At times we have allowed some bills to go through two steps in one day. Indeed, when the government has brought forth bills that aren't contentious, we've allowed that moving along of the process -- not often, but occasionally.

This government still doesn't place a priority on conducting government business in this Legislature in a meaningful, rational and reasoned manner. Rather, they go for photo opportunities. They take days off to go up to the Okanagan and have an economic conference that was basically a photo opportunity. At these particular conferences they held once they had closed down the House, very little was announced that had not already been told to the public beforehand.

We find that this is a government that governs du jour: "Today we'll do this; tomorrow we'll close down. This afternoon we'll go here; tomorrow we'll go into night sittings." As other members have said here, the notice we are giving with this night sitting is that members do have business besides what is going on in the legislative chamber. They also have business to do in their constituencies. We have preparations to make. We have to understand, consult and be prepared to debate the spending and the bills in a well-prepared manner. That is part of our job. There seems to be no urgency, other than that engineered by the procrastination of this government, to sit nights. Because there's some pressing matter that this government feels must be done, we must go into night sittings, adding another three or four hours per night.

Now we have a government that basically has a Midas touch. Remember Midas, the person for whom anything he touched turned to gold? Well, we have a government that has in the reverse of the Midas touch, because virtually everything they do turns to lead. When they took over this province, it was in fairly good financial condition. They took over a province where the provincial debt was in the $5 billion range, and they've more than doubled that. They took over a province where ferry rates were close to half of what they are today. They've taken a province that had a triple-A credit rating, and they've reduced that. We've had real problems with the government in dealing with the economy of the province.

You might think that maybe they're debating late into the night because of some economic situation, but we've had no indication that that's the case. If that had been the case, they should have started the session way back in February, when they had us here for 100th anniversary of this legislative chamber. They didn't do that. Why did they wait another six or seven weeks before they called us together? We were already here in February, when it would have been a logical time to begin the legislative session so that we wouldn't be here into June, July and August, debating bills and estimates. It would have been an excellent chance to have the business start and then carry on and have no necessity for this idiotic concept of going into night sittings and using what's commonly referred to as legislation by exhaustion.

It's not the proper type of legislation and governance that the people of this province deserve. They're not getting it from this government; that's for sure. This is the government which, when the gentleman who is now Premier was in his first year as Finance minister, added on $800 million in new taxes. In his second year, he added on roughly another $800 million. Well, I'm not used to -- like maybe these members are -- wasting millions of dollars and collecting millions of dollars out of people's pockets, but that government thinks it's funny. He added over $1.5 billion in new taxes on the backs of the people of this province in his first two years as Finance minister. That $1.5 billion in new taxes is still with us today.

So why are we here at 20 minutes to 12 debating, of all things, whether we should recess for a half-hour -- way back at 6 o'clock -- for a dinner break? Well, it's really quite simple. Governments in power often usurp their power, and this NDP government is a prime example of that: government by pressure, government by last-minute legislation, government by night sittings, government by legislation-by-exhaustion. When it isn't being manipulative, the government is simply being incompetent. Of the few tools the opposition has, what we are doing tonight is one way of registering our protest against that way of governing. We are saying: "Enough is enough." We are saying: "Do the people's business in a responsible manner." All members of this chamber, all MLAs -- not just the government members -- were elected to serve their constituents and the province. Set up a legislative calen

[ Page 9419 ]

Remember this: this is the Premier who, a few years back, worked out a health accord with the health unions -- with the HEU. In working that out, he worked on an accord that was supposedly going to save the province money. We found that rather than saving money, it cost money. The savings that were claimed never occurred, and I would note that because of the savings not occurring -- because expenses went up and the money wasn't there -- hospitals introduced something they referred to, I believe, as administrative days. Basically, they would close down the operating room for a day or so in the year and more in the summer, so that they could actually make their budget balance for that year. I find it rather interesting and possibly hypocritical that when the doctors do the same thing when the budget cap for doctors' moneys runs out, and they say, "Well, we're not being paid for any more hours, so we're going to close down our offices," that's terrible; but when the hospitals did it after the health accord, there was no mention of that.

This is the Premier who bungled -- I think that's the correct word to use -- the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits in negotiating with the Bonneville power authority. We lost greatly on that deal because of our Premier. The man who is Premier was the man in charge of B.C. Hydro when they got involved with the Raiwind power project. Look where that got us.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is a government that seems to move from crisis to crisis. Yet when we have unemployment at record rates in British Columbia and when youth unemployment is astronomical and out of sight -- at double the regular rate -- did we call the legislative session earlier to deal with these real issues in the economy and unemployment in this province? No, we didn't. But tonight they want to get their job-killing, investment-killing Labour Code amendment back in debate, and they can't even wait until next Monday and deal with the spending authority first. They can leave that till Monday and deal with interim supply, which is maybe the more pressing matter facing this House at this time of the year.

Well, I have no problem with sitting late if we're dealing with business of the province that is important that we have to do right now. If they're going to bring in some special legislation that's going to be important to the people of the province, that will get the economy kick-started again, then I'm all for it. There's no indication of that taking place; it's quite the opposite. This labour bill that they're trying to bring in -- force in -- by this late sitting isn't a situation such as we need this today and tonight because if we don't get it now, the economy of the province is going to go down the chute. There are many things that need to be discussed in this House in a reasonable time frame, and that has not occurred with this government.

I am a member, and have been a member each year that I've been elected -- and that's seven years now -- of the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. We did meet about three years ago. We met in dealing with the issue of youth and tobacco, and we even brought recommendations into this House. Indeed, the legislation was passed based on those recommendations. But there are many, many other issues in health. Look at what's happening. The northern doctors situation in this province has been going on for months and even now isn't quite settled. Did the Health Committee get called together to discuss that issue? No. So where is this government's priority on health care in British Columbia? It certainly isn't in the action that takes place in this legislative chamber. It isn't in the actions of having a Health Committee that never meets. Again, I really question where the priorities of this government are.

We also have an Education Committee. Now we find out that our Premier has gone out and negotiated behind the backs of the school boards of this province to deal with the teachers union to try to bring about an education accord in the province. Did education in this province come before this legislative Select Standing Committee on Education? Not at all. So I really have to ask: is this the same Premier who said in his throne speech in 1996, when taking office -- the first throne speech of this new Premier -- that he was going to use these legislative committees more and make more effective use of legislative committees? In fact, he even invented a new one. He invented the new committee for Crown corporations -- a committee that. . . . I happen to be the critic for B.C. Ferries, and if you want to know about a crisis happening in this province, there is certainly one in the finances of that particular Crown corporation. But this new Crown Corporations Committee should have been called together to discuss that. But no, it hasn't been called together at all, and we have a Ferry Corporation that's going bankrupt.

Where is the real crisis? We have a real crisis there, but that's not dealt with. No, we don't call that committee together to deal with that, and we're not sitting late, I'm sure, to deal with that particular crisis. This is one government that would rather sweep under the carpet.

I'm also the critic for B.C. Transit. We recently had a chance at working with this government and the GVRD to bring in a Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. Did the House committee discuss that? Not at all. This committee thing is really a farce, because the government doesn't use it. They could use it to make this House run much more effectively. If they want to end up making the place run more effectively, rather than sitting at nights, let's use legislative committees. Let's refer business to them, and have it done by the committee. Then bring back something that the House can agree on because we worked together on it. It's called cooperation.

We should not be working in this legislative chamber in a divisive manner, which is the way this government prefers to operate. We were all elected to represent the people of the province, we were all elected to represent our constituents and our ridings, yet this government pretends that somehow they were elected to represent everybody and that the people who were not elected as NDP members don't count. That's not true. Every person in this House -- all 75 of us -- counts. Our opinions and concerns should be heard, and we should have an opportunity to voice them -- including the NDP backbenchers, who seem to be voiceless, quite often, in this assembly.

[11:45]

[ Page 9420 ]

"The Attorney General" -- speaking of a previous government -- "acts as if this debate is about the logical way of going about doing the government's business, as if this five-minute recess and then carrying on this evening, last evening and however many evenings we've got coming ahead of us is a logical way to go about doing business. That, of course, is not what's happening here. This is a government that's in so much chaos it can't even manage the agenda for the Legislature."

Similarly, on June 17, 1991, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who is now a cabinet minister, said: "We now have the rest of the budget to approve." That's still true today. Referring to the case of the Socreds, she said: ". . .they want to push that through as quickly as possible. As our House Leader pointed out, 'legislation by exhaustion' used to be the trademark of Social Credit. Maybe we're coming back to that." That was her quote. Well, that hon. member for Cowichan-Ladysmith seems to be changing her mind -- a 180-degree turn.

We have a government, then, that considers this Legislature as a sort of toy that they can play around with, one where they can pull the puppet strings and have people do just as they want. That's not why I and other members of this side of the Legislature were elected. We are here, and we've been voted in here to do the business of this province with a rational, reasoned debate. That does not happen when we're going past 6 o'clock and getting into ten or 12 hours of debate. We need time to consider the legislation, to work on it, to communicate with people, to discuss it, in order to come in here fully informed and debate rationally.

There, I really think, is the whole nub of the matter. I don't think that government wants reasoned debate. They want to push everything through. They don't want to be questioned on the business of this government, because they know that a lot of it is not very good. They're not really willing to let the opposition and the people of this province know what they're up to. They want to shove it through as quickly as possible, before people realize what this government's doing to them. It's important, in the business of government, that the people within this chamber develop goodwill amongst themselves and develop a feeling of goodwill among the people of the province -- that we are here, doing things as they would see it done.

That goodwill, in the way that this government is operating, is evaporating -- if it hasn't already evaporated. This government does not behave in a manner that would show that they really want things to be run well. They've shown that they're incompetent at running the business of the province, by having to jump into legislative sittings at night because they haven't been able to keep to their agenda.

I would thank the Speaker for this opportunity to point to at least some of the incompetence in the government, and I wish that they would reconsider this crazy attitude and mood they've gotten us into. Let's get back to proper legislation in a proper time frame, so we can deal with the business in the most expedient and responsible way.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would move adjournment -- of the debate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You took the words right out of my mouth.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada