1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2539 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 2). Second reading.

On the amendment

Ms. Brown –– 2539

Mr. Mitchell –– 2541

Mr. Mowat –– 2545

Mr. Stupich –– 2547

Mr. Kempf –– 2549

Division –– 2549

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to beginning, I must inform members that

the orders of the day have not yet arrived. They have left the Queen's

Printer and are expected here shortly. If we could hold our proceedings

in abeyance until that time.... They should be here momentarily.

[10:15]

Prayers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the conclusion of

question period two matters of privilege were raised involving myself,

and this is the first opportunity I have had to respond to those

statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, for what purpose is the member seeking the floor?

HON. MR. McGEER: Under standing order 26.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, at this point the Chair would be

unable to take into account debate on a matter of privilege. A new

matter of privilege could be entertained, but under standing order 26

the key word is "immediately." Any debate thereon would be out of

order, unless the matter is a new matter of privilege.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it would be a new matter of privilege,

because yesterday, when the question was raised, I wasn't aware of the

information contained in the presentation by the member, and there is

information which I think you and the House would require in responding

to that particular question.

Mr. Speaker, I did, in answering a question from the member for

Nelson-Creston, incorrectly quote from the estimates by saying that the

amount in the blue book was the same this year as last year, and for

that I apologize. But the member, and all members of the House, have

had the detailed estimates before them since budget day. What is

important for the member and others in the House to recognize is not

stated in the budget, and perhaps by clarifying it I can set this

matter to rest for the member.

The student aid program is an open-ended program in which the

amounts are set, and then the total given by the Legislative Assembly

is determined by the number of students who apply. The government of

British Columbia has not reduced the amount of provincial aid funds

available to a needy student. The maximum grant was $2,000 in 1982-83,

and it is $2,000 in the current year. The reason why there may be some

confusion is that the federal loan has been increased from $1,800 to

$3,200. Indeed, the amount that a student may obtain this coming year

in terms of loans and grants has gone up substantially. The important

point, however, is that the maximum grant available from the provincial

government is the same this year as in previous years. I hope that

clarifies the matter.

[10:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair cannot help but observe that, rather

than the privilege motion, the proper course might have been to seek leave for

an apology to the House. Nonetheless, on the information that has been presented,

I will now ask the hon. member for Nelson-Creston if he feels the matter has

been sufficiently dealt with in his view and that in keeping with parliamentary

traditions it would no longer qualify. If that is the case, then I invite the

member for Nelson-Creston to comment accordingly.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a little bit

more than just say that I will accept the explanation given by the hon.

member as an honourable member. I would also think that it would be an

asset to this House if you were also to.... I hesitate to seek an

apology for a Liberal cabinet minister, but as the member virtually

accused the Hon. Serge Joyal of, I would say, lying, I think it would

also help in this matter if any such inference were be be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has commented on the matter, hon. members. The minister wishes to respond.

HON. MR. McGEER: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the comments

made by the Hon. Serge Joyal, if correctly quoted, were insulting to

the government of British Columbia as well as being incorrect. It is

not a matter for this House and...

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, that is the observation that the Chair....

HON. MR. McGEER: ...I certainly will not withdraw what I said about the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonetheless, an apology to the House was

forthcoming, and the member for Nelson-Creston, if he feels so

inclined...the matter may therefore be concluded.

MR. NICOLSON: The matter, Mr. Speaker, is withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would like to express the

gratitude of the Chair to the member for Nelson-Creston for the manner

in which this particular motion was handled. It greatly assisted the

Chair and is a process that could be recommended to all members. For

that we thank you.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 2.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I outlined

three reasons why I supported the motion that this bill be hoisted for

six months. I now have nine minutes or less, and what I would like to

do is deal with my fourth and final reason why I'm supporting this

motion that Bill 2 should

[ Page 2540 ]

be hoisted for six months — not to be ignored for

six months, not to be put on a shelf and forgotten, or in a briefcase

and zipped up, or locked up in a closet. The six-month period should be

used by the government in a positive way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

My fourth recommendation to the government is based on an idea which

was put forward by Rev. Hewett in a speech to the Unitarian Church

congregation on Sunday, September 18, of this year, in which he talked

about the fact that our values are not simply private and individual

but also shared with others, a fact which was touched on earlier this

morning by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

when he participated in this hoist debate. Rev. Hewett drew his sermon

from a statement made famous by Oliver Goldsmith, who said: "Ill fares

the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men

decay...." I'm not going to read his entire sermon, obviously, but it

certainly seems to me that some of the points of a respected member of

the religious community are worth looking at in terms of how we

deliberate in this House. We have a major responsibility here for

making the laws of the land, the laws by which people live.... If a

member of the religious community would like to share with us some

wisdom or some advice or some direction in terms of how we carry out

that process, I think we should welcome that.

Rev. Hewett goes on to say that there has been a concern that all

people should have the possibility of living under conditions in which

their potentialities might find fulfilment in their own individual way.

I think that during the six months during which this bill is hoisted....

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect

to the motion on the floor I would ask you to remind the member that it

is on the hoist, not on fulfilment and things of that like.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, although I

did hear the member, just as the point of order was about to be

advanced, indicating that she was relevant to the six-month hoist. I

will remind all members that this is a six month hoist to the Public

Service Labour Relations Amendment Act and is very narrow in scope.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure you that

earlier today I gave the member for Vancouver South permission to

interrupt me whenever he feels like it, because I recognize that that's

the job he has been given to do. Anything to keep the little

back-benchers busy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the hoist, please.

MS. BROWN: During the six-month period, the government should

bear in mind that life is a cycle. Nobody remains on top forever, nor

does anyone remain government forever. No nation remains powerful

forever. Laws made out of vindictiveness or retribution or whatever

against another group in our community are often the laws that a

government finds they themselves have to live by when they cease to be

government. I think this government has not given sufficient thought to

that. They introduce legislation, including this particular piece of

legislation, Bill 2, which is directed specifically at one particular

group or one particular

section of society....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it would

seem to me that the remarks by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds are

directed to the principle of the bill, not to the hoist. Would you

please remind her one more time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is valid. Will the member for Burnaby-Edmonds please relate her remarks to the principle of a hoist.

MS. BROWN: When a government introduces legislation, it often

fails to take into account any group but the one it specifically is

addressing itself to. I believe the cyclical nature of life, like the

cyclical nature of government, is worthy of some consideration by the

government.

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't hear

anything at all with respect to the hoist, the delay, reasons for delay

or anything else, reasons for holding this bill up. It is strictly on

the bill. There is no reference to time in the member's comments at

all. She persistently goes back to the same subject without listening

to you or anybody else in this House, as is her usual practice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. To the principle of a hoist, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, when one takes into account the

cyclical nature of life, one has to recognize that hoisting this

legislation for a period of six months would give the government time

to consider that a bill designed to affect one group in society may in

fact affect them in the long run. It is that cyclical nature of life

which has given rise to the golden rule. During the six months while

this bill is hoisted, the government will have time to think about

whether what they are doing unto others is in fact what they would like

to have done unto them.

I think I have about three minutes left, and I want to reiterate

very briefly in those three minutes the four reasons which I have

outlined for why this bill should be hoisted.

First, I mentioned that we all needed a cooling-off period in this

House as a direct result of the actions last night and today, and

hoisting this bill would give us the cooling-off period that we need.

The second thing I pointed out was that the six-month hoist would give

the government an opportunity to refer this bill to a standing

committee of the House, during which time people in the community would

have an opportunity to relate directly to the government, and the

government would have an opportunity to see the real human face behind

this piece of legislation. The third reason which I outlined, Mr.

Speaker, was that it would give the community at large, if the standing

committee were rejected, an opportunity to relate directly to the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), to the Premier and to other

members of the government in terms of the impact of this legislation on

them. In elaborating on that third point, I spoke specifically on

behalf of Burnaby. My time is up so I do not have an opportunity to

outline again my fourth point, which is the cyclical nature of life,

except to say I support this hoist.

[ Page

2541 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on the hoist principle.

[10:45]

MR. MITCHELL: It's with a certain amount of pride that I rise

this morning to debate the hoist motion on this particular bill. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if you were here at 8 o'clock when the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) was speaking on the

hoist motion. As I am his official opposition critic, I feel it's

really important that we in this House listen to what he had to say. I

think there are a lot of speeches that will go down in this particular

debate, but what he spoke about.... I wish he was here so I could

congratulate him for having the intestinal fortitude to stand up in

opposition to all the other cabinet ministers and back-benchers and

speak on this particular motion. The facts that he brought out, that we

live in a democracy and in this democracy....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all

due respect, this hoist motion allows very little latitude, as you have

pointed out so many times, and the opposition is using this hoist

motion to continue the debate in second reading, I suggest. Their

arguments are spurious and repetitious, they are not sticking to the

hoist motion, and I'm sure that despite your ruling they feel they can

each speak for 40 minutes on a simple hoist motion. I implore you, Mr.

Speaker, to remind them otherwise.

MS. BROWN: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier

this morning the Minister of Lands, Parks and Environment, with the

permission of the Speaker in the chair, engaged in wide-ranging debate.

At that time the Speaker permitted the members of the opposition, in

speaking on the hoist, to respond to the statements made by the

government member, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Environment. That

is precisely what the members on this side of the House have been

doing. The Speaker permitted that, and stated that he would be

permitting that to happen.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. We have two items to

discuss here, hon. members, with respect to the points of order. First,

your current Speaker is well aware of the latitude that was allowed.

Your current Speaker is also aware that the minister to whom we're

referring in these points of order was in fact censured by Mr. Speaker

for straying too far from the principle of a hoist. Although a bit of

latitude was allowed a following speaker, I think we can dispense with

the amount of latitude now because it has been offered reciprocally to

the minister and to the member who followed.

Secondly, standing order 43 advises not to be tedious or repetitious

in the arguments of ourselves and the arguments of other members. If

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is going to reiterate arguments

put forward by another member, even the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing, and Environment, then the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

will be offending standing order 43. I so rule, and I ask the hon.

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to advance new material with respect

to the principle of a hoist motion.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that in this

House a reference to democracy, debate, discussion and attitudes is

considered to be a bad word. This is what I find in this whole

Legislature today. When I was going through the minister's statement as

reported in the Blues as to why we are asking that this particular

bill....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we're

debating a hoist motion, and I understand that that means that you

discuss and debate the reason for the hoist, not ramble on about

democracy and all other things in general. I would ask you, Mr.

Speaker, to bring this member to order. Let's get on with the business

of this House and debate what you have brought up, which is a hoist

motion.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the most

eloquent speech — eloquent only because it was uninterrupted — given

entirely on the theme of democracy on this motion was given by a

minister of the Crown, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. To

then say that that subject material is off limits on this particular

motion is unusual, to say the least.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll advise the member for Nelson-Creston, as

I've just advised the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, that some

latitude was allowed the speaker following the minister. Also, the

minister was asked by the Speaker at that time to contain his remarks

to the hoist principle. So I think the rules of parliament were well

served in that the Speaker did rule on the content of the speech of the

minister, but did, in the spirit of reciprocal latitude that follows in

these cases, allow the following speaker to dwell on the same subject.

However, that being dispensed with, I think we must now insist that

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew introduce new material — not

repetitive material, but new material to the principle of the hoist

motion before us.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order....

MR. MOWAT: Come on, you're wasting time!

MR. ROSE: You're not going anywhere anyway, so what do you care?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! To the point of order, please.

MR. ROSE: I would like....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we can only handle one point of order at a time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's what I've advised him. Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I was harassed, when I got up here to

offer a point of order, by catcalls from across the way. I'd like an

opportunity to ask for clarification on standing

[ Page 2542 ]

order 43, because Mr. Speaker has demanded that my

colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew put forward new

material and new points. What I would like to ask the Speaker is this:

is it points that have not been raised in previous debate by other

speakers, or is he supposed to bring forward points that are new to the

whole debate under which we are operating, which is a six-month hoist?

I would like to point out to Mr. Speaker that while I am perfectly

willing to be guided by the idea of repetition when it comes to my own

speech, the fact is that I didn't get elected here necessarily as part

of a party or part of a team. I was elected here as an individual

representing my riding. So I have a right to get up and make my speech,

and if someone who precedes me has intelligence enough to raise the

same points that I intend to raise on behalf of my constituents, it is

really not the responsibility of the Chair to prevent me from speaking

as an individual representative of my riding on behalf of my

constituents. And I intend to fight for that right when it comes my

turn to speak on the hoist.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that point of

order, a member in the House certainly may offer their own comments and

they may feel they have the obligation on behalf of their constituents,

but they also have the obligation to abide by the rules of the House.

Standing order 43 refers to the unacceptability of tedious repetition

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members

in debate.

MR. ROSE: Please read where it says that.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: It says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a

member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of

his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate,

may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still

continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name himor, if in committee, the

Chairman shall report him to the House."

I'm not arguing with the member; the member has his

point of view with respect to this. But I think all members in the

House must abide by the standing orders, and the standing order is

clear. It refers to tedious and repetitious debate not confined to the

individual member, but also including the arguments used by other

members in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I think that is quite clear.

Continuing on the points of order, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that

standing order 43 is saying that if a member persists in tedious

repetition.... To state once, as that minister has done, a statement

made by someone else cannot be referred to as repetition. Stating for

the first time is in no language, in any jurisdiction anywhere in the

world, known as repetition. Repetition means repeating, saying more

than once. So for that member to stand up and state once that such a

member said such a thing, or to say that another person said something,

cannot be perceived as repetition. That member has to be repetitious,

and a statement said once cannot be construed as being repetitious. Let

us not start rewriting the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker — not now.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member wish to rise on a point of order or continue his debate?

MR. MITCHELL: On the point of order, if I can do that and

then work into my speech. Repetition is if I keep on saying:

"democracy, democracy, democracy, democracy." It would be repetition if

I kept on saying: "hoist, hoist, hoist." If I kept on saying,

"jackboot, jackboot, jackboot," that would be repetition. I believe

language, because what I am going to say.... And I haven't said

anything up until this point without a lot of interruption. I haven't

had a chance to develop an argument or a train of thought without

certain people bringing onto your poor shoulders — and I appreciate

your position up there because I know you are in between what I would

say are spurious points of order that have nothing to do with this

debate. What we are debating is the hoist motion on Bill 2. The

minister is here and I know he would be happy if I used some of his

arguments as to why I think this particular bill should be hoisted. He

would be happy if I should take some of the contents of his speech or

his train of thought to deliver what I believe is a substantial reason

for hoisting this motion in order to give British Columbia and those

who are going to be affected by this piece of legislation an

opportunity for input into the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't want to interrupt, but I

presume the member is now entering into his debate, which is fine; just

as long as we understand that this is no longer a point of order that

the member is raising.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that was my mistake,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed. I think the debate is going quite well, if we can advance new information with respect to this hoist motion.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much for bringing me to order,

Mr. Speaker. I realize that I missed my point, but I was trying to work

it into the train of thought that I feel it's important for this

Legislature to understand. When we speak, because we are an

language, but I feel at times those words are abused. I believe the

word "restraint," which appeared throughout the minister's speech, has

been abused. Restraint is something that I believe in and have

practised all my life. It's a philosophy that many of us who have

worked and raised a family believe in. I feel that this word is falling

into disrepute, like the word "McCarthy" fell into disrepute in the

United States. In Europe the word "quisling," which was a family name,

fell into disrepute.

[11:00]

I feel that in British Columbia the word "restraint" is being used

to push through legislation that should be hoisted. It's legislation

that takes away the rights of some 90-odd sections of a collective

agreement that was negotiated freely by the minister, his aides and the

government, negotiated in

[ Page 2543 ]

the established traditions of parliament. The hoist

motion is one of those traditions given to us by the Mother of

Parliaments to take that second thought, to take the time to delve into

legislation that is being pushed through very quickly, pushed through

by means of exhaustion. I don't mind that. I believe the government has

the right to govern in the manner they want, provided they go through

the traditions of a debate that is important.

In my previous way of life I earned my living in the courts, and

those courts were built on traditions, on the rights of defence lawyers

and prosecutors to use a certain method. I think parliament has

established a method in the way of hoisting, and I say sincerely, as

the representative for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, an area which has many

public servants — federal, provincial and municipal — living in it,

that they want this government to set up a standing parliamentary

committee, which is part of our tradition of democracy. They would then

have an opportunity to show each one of us who may sit on that

committee the devastating effect that Bill 2 is going to have on

somethng they negotiated freely with this government, and something

they thought they had secured.

Those rights of a collective agreement are as important to the

people who have signed it as are the rights of parliament, the right of

free speech, the right to express our opinions. These traditions have

been given to us because many people fought for them and endangered

their economic strength because of them. Many people will go down in

history because they believed that parliament, the rights of hoist, the

rights of free debate are something that no one will take away from us.

But those contracts have been broken, and not by free negotiations or

by giving the government the right to put out their position, saying to

those with whom they are negotiating: "This is our economic position

and this is as far as we can go." Those rights enshrined in previous

legislation by the Social Credit and NDP governments are going to be

taken away.

The minister, before becoming Provincial Secretary, was a Minister

of Labour, and he knows those traditions and believes in them. I know

that some of his actions in the past have been fair. I think if we

hoist this particular piece of legislation and he has an opportunity to

meet face to face with people and other MLAs from both sides of the

House, and when they listen.... As the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing said, we have an obligation to listen. That is an obligation

that I think each of us should be fighting to meet.

I think it's interesting when we look at what's happening around the

world. Maybe it's not new information, but it did appear on the front

page of today's paper that one man was awarded the Nobel peace prize

because of his non-violent struggle for all people who desire peace and

freedom.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the events of the world and the

Nobel peace prize, I think, stray somewhat from the concept of hoisting

this specific bill for a period of six months. I wonder perhaps if the

Chair might ask the member if he could attempt to be more relevant in

his debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is valid. The principle of

a hoist motion is a principle of delay, and if the member can please

relate his remarks to that principle then the Legislative Assembly will

be well served.

MR. MITCHELL: Through you to the minister, it is very

imperative that we have non-violent debate, and that's what I'm asking.

In the thread of my previous words we must sit down and have discussion

from both sides of those who are going to be affected. We must have

that open discussion. We cannot allow something to fester, something to

boil over, something to destroy our democracy. I feel that a struggle

for non-violent debate for that right that will come about if this

motion to hoist is accepted by the House will be what will make the

difference to a government determined, before they go into

negotiations, to take off rights that have been established — rights

that are part of the history of British Columbia. When we go into those

discussions in a parliamentary committee I hope the minister will

appear before that committee and give the real across-the-table

discussion that is necessary to get his position and the government's

position of why they feel this particular piece of legislation must be

pushed through at this time. I believe he can be questioned. Normally

the minister, when he opens up the debate on Bill 2, and I went through

the Blues.... You can't cover everything that arises in the debate on

either the main motion or the motion to hoist, but normally the other

cabinet ministers do enter the debate and do give us an opportunity to

hear other supporting material. We haven't had that opportunity,

because none of the government members will enter into this

across-the-floor debate that is important. If we can't have that debate

within the House, I know that we can have that discussion — and a very

honest discussion — in a parliamentary committee, picking the brains of

those who are the experts on labour negotiations and on parliamentary

legislation. We're asking that government accept our motion to hoist in

order to give those who are affected a chance to present their side and

to listen. I think that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing hit a

very honest word when he said "to listen."

I think it's interesting when the Polish leader received the Nobel

Prize. It says: "Walesa made yet another call for negotiations with

Polish authorities." The only way to find solutions to our problems is

discussion around the table.

MR. R. FRASER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, under standing

order 43. I think the member is being very tedious and repetitious.

We've already discussed the point he's bringing up again, and I would

suggest that he return to the hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The Chair

must also advise the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that, by

the precedent of a decision by Speaker Murray, this House will not

allow amendment of a principle of a bill to go to committee. In fact,

discussion of such a committee would also be out of order. Please

proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, could you run that by me again and please clarify what you just said? It's a new argument that has come up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As a matter of fact, it has been discussed in

this House just recently. A bill may not be amended in such a way as to

send it to a committee. That is a ruling of this House in a precedent

set by Speaker Murray. Therefore, in second reading debate on the bill,

one could not advance the notion of sending the material to a

committee. Therefore reference to a committee would be out of order on

a hoist motion. Please proceed.

[ Page 2544 ]

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: I just want to be sure that I heard correctly, Mr.

Speaker, because it seems to me that on this hoist motion members on

both sides — not both sides of the House, because only one member on

the government side has spoken — have been discussing what should

happen to the bill when it's hoisted. We have been making positive

suggestions and recommendations. One such positive suggestion to the

government was that the bill should be referred to a standing committee

of the House. Is the Speaker now ruling, after this idea has been

shared with the government by a number of members from the opposition,

that retroactively that suggestion is now out of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, for the reasons I've just advanced, and which the Journals

will show. But for another reason: the motion is that the bill be read

six months hence. If it's going to be read six months hence, it can't

go to a committee.

MS. BROWN: Further to that ruling, Mr. Speaker, are you

suggesting that during the six months until the bill is read a second

time or a third time, the government cannot be advised on how to treat

the bill during that six months?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you repeat the question, please?

MS. BROWN: Is the Speaker ruling that the members of the

opposition cannot suggest what should happen to that bill during the

six months that it's hoisted — that we can't, for example, fold it, put

it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and mail it to a friend or

relative and bring it back to the House in six months? Is that not

permitted?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That

interpretation is quite correct. The

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has put the motion that the

bill be not read now, but be read in six months. Therefore that's what

we must debate.

MS. BROWN: That means you can say anything you want in support of that argument.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it's to be read in six months, it would be negating the motion to say it goes to a committee.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you have to say it has to be back from committee in six months?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No reference to committee, please. I think we've established that. Please proceed.

[11:15]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that you came up

with this particular

interpretation at this time. It really reinforces

what I said before. In traditions and in parliament, words are used

with a meaning, and the one word to a hoist is to do something. Maybe

you are right that it can't be read for another six months, but a

government has the opportunity and the responsibility — and this is the

most important part — to read what we as MLAs have said. They can read

from our speeches. They can read, when this motion has passed, that the

House, in their wisdom, has said to the government that this particular

piece of legislation is not acceptable in its present form. They have

that opportunity within that six months to do something with that

legislation. If they can't do what I suggest and what other members

have suggested, I can't tell them what to do. I believe that they, in

their wisdom, if this message was given to them by the House.... We

represent the non-cabinet side of government, but we are all MLAs. A

government receives a message, and that message must be something

positive. They must do something positive. I feel that when we hoist

this motion, we are not hoisting it, though the motion that it be read,

I believe.... The House keeps referring that we hoist this particular

bill. That was not in the motion. It's common usage that the word

"hoist".... The motion was that the bill "be read six months hence,"

but we have cut that down in our parliamentary terminology to "hoist,"

and it is used freely because it is part of what parliament means. It

is part of the parliamentary jargon. I am glad that you don't say that

I can't use "hoist," and I have to use "that the bill be read in six

is used and abused. I think it is important that we don't try and take

a real hard line just to stifle debate. Debate and discussion are the

only way that our democracy will work, the only way that we can get

peace with our government employees and fellow British Columbians. Many

of my friends work for the government. Many of my friends work in

private industry. Every one of them pays income tax. Every one of them

has something to give....

MR. KEMPF: What has that got to do with the hoist?

MS. BROWN: You can't use the word hoist.

MR. MITCHELL: "Hoist" isn't in the motion.

MR. KEMPF: What has it got to do with the motion then?

MR. MITCHELL: The motion is that this House give the cabinet

and especially the Provincial Secretary an opportunity to reread his

legislation and to take the advice of his colleague, the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) to listen. That's all that

we in the opposition and those in the public who have attempted to

express their indignation at some of the legislative package that was

brought in following the budget.... This particular bill that we wish

to have read in six months time and, if needed, be amended, changed,

altered....that the government in their wisdom — I say in their wisdom,

Mr. Speaker — read what we are saying.... If I am denied the

opportunity to lay it out.... That particular group of people

understand the parliamentary facilities that are available to this

House. They know what cabinet can do. They can set up committees, they

can set up cabinet committees, they can go out into the community, and

they do that. Prior to every election, they take trains and buses and

they travel around and they listen. They advertise well on TV what

locations they are going to be at. All we are asking is that this

motion be read six months hence.

I implore you, Mr. Speaker, in your position when you are not

sitting in that seat, that you talk to your caucus, to your caucus

leaders, and to the government and express what we are trying to say,

what the public is asking, and take that second look and rewrite this

particular bill. Don't take away from any

section of the community

rights that they have

[ Page 2545 ]

fought for and negotiated for. The legislation that

we are changing, though it affects the particular collective agreement,

was presented to this House. Some of the members of the cabinet who are

still here brought in that type of legislation. I believe that prior to

May 5 they campaigned on it. This is the law of this province. This is

the type of legislation that we have supported over the last ten years.

Parts of it we have amended; parts of it we have changed; parts of it

the community have grown used to. Many other speakers over the debate

have kept on telling us about this May 5 election. I believe this is

the part that they fail to mention when we ask that this motion be read

six months from now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would advise the member that he has three minutes left.

MR. MITCHELL: In winding up my talk, I believe today has been

a very important day. In this debate people have risen and have tried

to express indignation. They have tried to do what a person in Poland

got the Nobel Prize for: nonviolent action. I think it is important

that we should look....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano on a point of order.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, it's costing $8,640 to the taxpayers of

this province to listen to a 40-minute speech that is not in line with

the motion before the House, and that's a terrible waste of money.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point of order. The member has just a few minutes left; perhaps we can let him finish.

MR. MITCHELL: I am saying that we on this side of the House

have debated this non-violently. We have tried to express our opinions,

our beliefs, our feelings. If this costs the people of British Columbia

eight thousand-odd dollars for our opportunity....

MR. REE: It costs the people $8,640 for your speech.

MR. MITCHELL: I say to all those in the gallery: raise your hands if you oppose democracy. You do not put a price on democracy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No reference to the galleries, please.

MR. MITCHELL: You do not put a price on rights. You do not put a price on debate. Democracy and debate are fundamental to our country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired.

MR. MITCHELL: Many have died for it. We will continue the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member for Prince Rupert wished to be recognized on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Time and time again — but I'll only deal with the

last point of order raised by the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) — they have put a price tag on how much it

costs to run this Legislature. The price tag is in error. I think it

would be incumbent on the Speaker's office, which is in charge of this

establishment, to bring back to this House the actual costs, so that we

would know once and for all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member. It

was not a point of order when the member for North Vancouver–Capilano

raised it, and the Chair so ruled. So I can't find your point of order

a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 43. Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedures and Practice ,

says that in the House of Commons a member will not be permitted by the

Speaker to indulge in any reflection on the House itself as a political

institution or as a branch of government or to impute to any number of

members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case. Saying

that the House is wasting time and putting some sort of price tag on it

is obviously an abuse of standing order 43 and is a precedent which I

don't think we should tolerate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was why the Chair did not recognize the point of order from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) inadvertently

attempted to encourage members in the public galleries to take

part in

debate in the House. I'm sure it was quite inadvertent, but I think it

should be pointed out to members that those in attendance in the

galleries have no opportunity at all — and should not be encouraged in

any way — to take

part in the proceedings of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Chair mentioned that to the member after he made that statement.

The member for Nanaimo rises on a point of order?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, is it all right to talk about something else?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, because...

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to enter into the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...I'm about to recognize another speaker. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain has been recognized on the debate.

MR. MOWAT: On the motion to Bill 2. I've been listening to

this debate for many hours. After being here for most of the 24 hours,

I really believe that all that can be said has been said, and at a

great cost to the citizens of the province, the taxpayers. I won't put

forward the approximate figures that we have calculated, but it has

been at a great cost to all taxpayers to go through very tedious and

repetitious debate that is not relevant to the problem at hand. We've

had 13 speakers on the bill — a total of more than nine hours. We've

had nine speakers on the hoist, for more than seven hours. We are not

serving the purpose of the parliament.

Pursuant to standing order 46, I move....

Interjections.

[ Page 2546 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a minute; I do want to accept one point of order before the member continues.

On a point of order, the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, various members on this side of the

House have been called to order for making various points that have

nothing at all to do with the hoist now before us. The member, to this

point, has said nothing about the hoist; he is again referring to the

cost, which you have already ruled is not a subject for discussion

under the hoist. I would ask you to bring him to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member continues.

MR. MOWAT: In speaking to the motion, I move the question now be put.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the question....

I'll entertain a few points of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of standing order 46 is that it may not be moved unless the Speaker is in the chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker may take it.

MR. COCKE: Which was not announced by the Clerk, Mr. Speaker, with respect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is normally done at the opening session

if there is an unavoidable absence. Obviously the Speaker is absent,

and no doubt it's unavoidable. There's not much more I can say.

[11:30]

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you are

ruling that whenever the Speaker is not in the chair the House is to

accept that his absence is unavoidable, you leave us no alternative but

to challenge that irresponsible ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I will entertain a point of order from the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Standing order 12 says, with respect to the

absence of the Speaker: "Whenever the House is informed by the Clerk at

the table of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the Deputy

Speaker, or, in his....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: At least we have order.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue. A motion was put; I gather it must be

put again. I was pointing out to the House that under standing order

12, there is no unavoidable absence of the Speaker unless that

unavoidable absence is announced by the Clerk prior....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: The member is correct.

Hon. members, at this point, the Speaker being in the Chair and the question having been put....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question was

put in the absence of Mr. Speaker from the chair. The member for Little

Mountain took his place in debate, concluded debate, but was out of

order because of the absence of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest that the next speaker be allowed to speak.

[Interruption. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is not totally satisfied

that the motion could be put, nor is it satisfied that the motion could

not be put. Clearly, hon. members, standing orders say that Mr. Speaker

shall be in the chair. Nor am I satisfied that the member has lost his

place in debate. However, I am not going to allow the same motion,

notwithstanding that the motion has not been negatived; that, hon.

members, is a critical aspect to the ruling as to whether or not the

member would lose his place. However, because of the nature of the

motion and because of the importance that everything be followed

properly, I will not put the motion at this time.

MR. REE: Is the member still in his place, Mr. Speaker? If not, I will be standing to speak on the motion.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Had the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain concluded his remarks?

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the middle of my debate the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) got up, and I was asked by the Chair to

cease my debate while he gave a point of order. The point of order was

that you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the chair. That point was not

allowed by the Deputy Speaker and I then brought forward my motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has declined to accept

the motion, based on a technicality of where the actual Chair was. On

that same point, I think it only fair that we allow the member to

conclude his remarks without putting the question.

I now recognize the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, who will continue in debate on the hoist motion.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I have listened long

to a great deal of repetitious, tedious debate, and I think there has

been great expense to our taxpayers because of this motion put by the

opposition. We have been listening for hours and hours at a great cost

to the taxpayers. I think it's time we got on and put the legislation

in and got our economy rolling; time we started to think about the

taxpayers and to move in a very forward motion. We have been debating

motions now for over three days, wasting a great deal of time. The

citizens of our province are not served by constant stalling and

filibustering by our opposition. I think it is time for the government

to govern, and I really feel strongly about this. There are many people

out there, and many programs are being cut by the amount of money we

are wasting in this

[ Page 2547 ]

Legislative Assembly. I think we should get on with the debate.

I would again move, pursuant to standing order 46, that the question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to clarify the situation, the Chair

had acknowledged that that question would not be put at this time

because of the procedure that has been used. I therefore cannot change

for just a few moments, and would advise members who so desire that

they must recognize that the Speaker be in place to move that

particular motion.

Alternating on debate, hon. members, the Chair recognizes the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: Speaking on the question of the hoist, may I

first comment very briefly on the cost of the time that we're taking to

discuss whether or not the bill should he postponed for some six

months. The member gave the figure of $8,640 per hour. Without

examining the figure in any detail — it's often said that figures don't

lie but liars figure — and not knowing the basis of his calculation,

but knowing from previous occasions that the member's salary and

cabinet ministers' salaries have been included in these calculations

and these salaries go on in any case.... One big factor in the cost

must be the amount of overtime that is being paid to staff with these

marathon sittings. However, leaving all that aside, even if the cost is

accurately $8,640 per hour, if we can indeed reach some level of sanity

in this place, then that price is cheap. I'm not sure we can, but I

think it is important that we at least make some attempt to do so.

A six-month hoist, admittedly, is further delay. The Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) said, in some

exasperation from his seat, that the bill has been sitting on the order

paper since July 7. Indeed it has. And by the time we started

discussing it yesterday, October 5, it had been sitting on the order

paper for 13 full weeks — a long time. But not once during that whole

period of 13 full weeks did the government bring forward this bill for

discussion. So the delay has not been on the part on the opposition.

That bill could have been discussed the second week in July. The

government chose to hold back on it. Mr. Speaker, why? Why did they

want that delay, and why are they now apparently turning down an

opportunity for further delay? Certainly that's what we're asking when

we ask that consideration be postponed for some six months. Bill 2 is

the first message bill introduced, in terms of numbers. Bill 1 is of no

consequence; it's never discussed. Bill 2 is the very first message

bill. The government had an opportunity to bring it forward for

discussion as early as July 11, I believe, and chose not to. They chose

to let it sit on the order paper for some 13 full weeks before bringing

it forward.

The bill proposes wiping out some ten years of free collective

bargaining between government employees and the employer. That is not

the way the minister saw it. The minister spoke at some length in

second reading and gave a description of the legislation quite

different from the

interpretation that is taken by the people out in

the community who are going to be affected by this. They see the bill

in quite different colours, in quite a different light from that

presented by the minister. Apparently there is misunderstanding, and

that's perhaps one of the reasons for postponing consideration for some

six months. If the minister sees the bill in one way and the people

affected by it see it in another way, then why not postpone

consideration until everyone knows what we're talking about?

He made comments yesterday in second reading that bill the does not

take away the right to bargain collectively. The people being subjected

to this legislation feel that it does in effect make a charade of the

whole process of so-called collective bargaining between the government

employees and the government. There is quite a difference there, a wide

difference in the two opinions.

The bill has been attacked by many groups in the community, not just

by the people directly affected. The general

interpretation, the

general feeling in the community about this legislation — about the

whole package of 26, for that matter, but certainly about this one in

particular — is that it does indeed take away from the bargaining

rights that employees have had for some ten years, and bargaining

rights that, in the light of our experience, they seem not to have

abused. Apparently there has been discussion between the government and

employees. There have been agreements reached from time to time, and

there have been questions raised as to whether or not the government

has lived up to agreements that it signed. There has been this orderly

process, and now there seems to be a misunderstanding as to how it is

going to work under the legislation before us. In the light of ten

years of success, after the many years when there was not any measure

of collective bargaining between the government and its employees....

Since we have been successful in this bargaining process for some ten

years and are now dealing with legislation that would completely change

that, in the ruinds of some people that is in itself reason enough to

consider postponing this bill for some six months.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt),

again speaking from his seat, said the fact that 26 pieces of

legislation were ready to be introduced the same day as the budget

shows that: "We were ready." Perhaps the government was ready, but the

government had not discussed this legislation with the community. There

is, as I say, an apparent misunderstanding in the community as to what

the legislation means. The minister implied that the government won the

right to do this because they won the election, but there was no

indication during the election campaign itself that the government was

determined or had plans, no indication that the government was ready

with the kind of legislation that we have seen in these 26 pieces of

legislation, including Bill 2 before us now.

If the government had all that time to get ready and kept that

information from the electorate during the election campaign, if it was

not prepared to level with the electorate but had these plans ready in

the event it was successful in the election campaign, surely it owes

something to the total community. Surely it owes government employees

an opportunity to sit down and negotiate, to sit down and discuss with

the minister how he sees the bill. The Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs said they were ready. I understood him to say they

were ready before the election. They were certainly ready after the

election on July 7. They were ready to dump the whole load, including

that Bill 2, which, as I said, will make an absolute charade of the

process of collective bargaining.

If the government was that ready, it is not being fair to the people

affected by this legislation unless they too have some time to meet

with the minister and discuss the implication of this legislation,

discuss the way in which it would work.

[ Page 2548 ]

That is a reason for postponing consideration of this legislation

for some six months. No doubt the government did have its reasons for

putting all 26 pieces together, and no doubt the government had its

reasons for withholding this legislation from the public generally

until the budget was introduced on July 7. I suggested during the

course of my response to the budget that they must have been reading

Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of hardball politics, who described the

situation of the present policy exactly. His advice to the usurper was

"to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for

him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to

repeat them daily.... For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so

that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given

little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer."

[11:45]

If we are doing injury to anyone in the community.... In times like

these, when there is so much concern about what the government is

doing, so much concern about the effect of this package of legislation,

so much concern about Bill 2 and what it will do to what have been

orderly negotiations between the government and its employees, is not

the time to be talking about doing injuries to anyone. If we need

anything at all today in the province of British Columbia we need some

consultation and some cooperation. We need to defuse the present

climate in the province. We are getting perilously close to October 31

and somebody has to make some kind of a move to indicate that they have

some concern for what is happening in the province, some concern for

the people's problems, for the economy of the province. One way of

showing that they do indeed admit that there is an explosive situation

in the province right now is to make some gesture and say: Yes we are

willing, there is no hurry to put through Bill 2. Let's make some

gesture and say to the people out there that we will take time to

consider this. We will allow you to come and make representations. We

will sit down with you so that you understand the bill as we understand

the bill. Whether or not we make any changes in the six months is not

the question right now, but let's make sure there is some

communication, rather than statements from both parties to the press

attacking each other. Let's get away from this business of doing

anybody ill, doing anybody harm, attacking anyone, and let's start

talking to each other.

The minister in his remarks implied that one of the reasons for

proceeding with the legislation now, some 13 weeks after it was

introduced, that one of the reasons they had to proceed with it, had to

be ready to implement it by October 31, is the financial position of

the province. Mr. Speaker, we really don't know what that is right now.

We have not had, any opportunity to examine the spending plans of the

government. That is another reason for postponing consideration of this

bill for six months. The budget came down on July 7; we are well

through half of this fiscal period and we have not had one minister

present his spending estimates to us. By this time the ministers may

have changed their minds.They might have some different figures to

offer. They might be able to show us by this time that there are some

economies available. Members in the opposition side may be able to

present economies to the government. There might indeed be some savings

possible on the expenditure side when we start talking to the ministers

individually about their estimates. That being the case, it would wipe

out one of the minister's main arguments for proceeding with this bill

at this time. The financial position may not be nearly as bad as he

says it is.

We don't know about the revenue, of course, but we won't have long

to wait. We are now into the third quarter. Soon we will have a second

quarterly report which in itself may show that there are not the

financial constraints that would make it necessary for us to proceed

with Bill 2 at this time. Let's set it aside as a gesture to the

community and show them that while we are waiting for further

information we are prepared to negotiate, to consult, to talk, to

answer questions, to raise other matters. In the interest of getting

some harmony back into the province of British Columbia, let's proceed

with the amendment before us now and agree to a six-month hoist.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), in speaking on this,

raised the question of referring the matter to a select standing

committee. We appreciate that the bill can't be referred to a select

standing committee in the event that it is hoisted for six months, but

surely this whole question of the relationship between the government

and its employees and how this should be dealt with, how it should be

handled, whether there needs to be any changes, is something that could

be considered by a select standing committee of the Legislature which

would have the authority to call witnesses before which committee

people in the community could ask for invitations to appear. There

could be an opportunity for greater understanding so that everyone

would know where we are and would understand the need for whatever

legislative changes might be forthcoming. The six-month hoist period

would give time for that process. More than giving time for the

process, it would also indicate to the community generally that the

government recognizes there is this widespread concern; recognizes the

problems that it has, if not created, allowed to develop from the

introduction of the budget and the 26 pieces of legislation, including

Bill 2; recognizes that situation in the community and agrees that in

the interests of all concerned, and in the interest of the province as

a whole, indeed the government has to hold out the olive branch.

Somebody has to. Somebody has to take the first step. Somebody has to

make the approach. And that somebody, I submit, has to be the

government. Agreeing to a six-month hoist on Bill 2 would give time for

that kind of step to be taken, a step that would do a lot to alleviate

concerns about what might happen in the province at a date very near in

the future.

The Opposition House Leader put out a press release recently. The

subject? "Howard Calls for Reason and Responsibility in Operation of

the House: MLA Frank Howard, NDP House Leader, again offered to meet

with the government to discuss the orderly progress of legislation and

to search for areas where compromise may be reached." Mr. Speaker, we

need that, but to get it we need some gesture from the government that

they are prepared to give us some indication that they recognize the

need and are prepared to offer some gesture and a six-month hoist on

any one of the pieces of legislation where we asked for one. We have

asked for it on bill after bill....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate

that because we are doing the best we can to persuade the government

that they have to take some initiative. If there is going to be any

peace and harmony in the House and in the community, somebody has to

take the first

[ Page 2549 ]

step. The House Leader has asked the government to

cooperate with him in trying to take that kind of a step; a six-month

hoist would be an indication that the government is willing to sit down

and negotiate not just the business in the House, but the business of

our whole province. We need some kind of gesture. It can't be quiet

comer gossip, quiet comer talks; there has to be something public,

something from the government, and support of a six-month hoist for

Bill 2 — or for any of the others where such requests were rejected —

would have accomplished it.

This is the time. We are getting perilously close, as I have said.

There is a time bomb ticking away out there, Mr. Speaker. Somebody has

to do something to diffuse it. The government's acceptance this morning

— it's still morning — of this amendment to hoist the bill for six

months would be the government's opportunity to diffuse that time bomb.

I think we all realize how serious the situation is in the province

right now. We can't live in B.C. right now and not be aware of what is

happening. Problems in the House are one thing, and I think that what

happened last night is evidence that tempers are getting frayed. With

the hours we've been working — not that anybody objects to working

hours if we are accomplishing anything, but there is concern that we

haven't been.... Tempers are frayed in the House; there's no question

about that. We need some defusing here as well.

The government's acceptance of a six-month hoist on this bill really

wouldn't hurt the government financially to any great extent;

postponing their firing for six months and postponing this bill for six

months would not hurt the government's program to any great extent. It

would go a long way towards clearing up the friction in this chamber.

It would go a long way towards defusing the time bomb that is getting

awfully close to zero hour out there in the community. Mr. Speaker, I

implore the government to be the ones to hold out the olive branch and

to take the first step. The step immediately available to them is to

say: "Yes, we recognize there is a problem. Yes, we're prepared to sit

down and talk with anyone who wants to talk with us. We are prepared to

discuss the problems in the community, the problems in the House, and

we will accept this as our indication that we are ready to talk." If

the offer is spurned, Mr. Speaker, then it would seem to me that the

government is in a much stronger position to proceed with its

legislative program. I hope and trust that the offer would not be

spurned. I believe that such an offer from the government at this time

would be readily accepted by the opposition and by the people out in

the community who today are very concerned about what may happen by the

time this month runs out.

Mr. Speaker, the government has the opportunity, but more than that,

the government has the responsibility. No one else can do it. Only the

government can make this step; it is available to them today. The

timing couldn't be better after what happened last night. The timing

couldn't be better, having in mind the October 31 deadline. It's up to

them. They have the opportunity; they have the responsibility. If they

do not react positively, if they do not show that they are responsible,

Mr. Speaker, I promise you the community will be reminded about this

day after day and year after year.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, for reasons recently put by my

colleague, the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), I move

the motion be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is that the question be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

[12:00]

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Johnston

R. Fraser

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 10

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Hanson

Lockstead

Mitchell

Rose

Brown

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair now puts the question on the hoist

which is that the word "now" be amended and the words "on this day six

months hence" added.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Mitchell

Rose

NAYS — 30

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Parks

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Returning now to the main question, on Bill 2, the Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

[ Page 2550 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:08 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada