1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 9

Part 1

[ Page 9333 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce two constituents of mine from Osoyoos, Elaine and Conner Clarke. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Chong: I'd like to introduce to the House today two guests of mine, Anne Heel and Bonnie Smith. Both are involved with music programs in schools. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have some 20 visitors from Catlin Gable Elementary School in Portland, Oregon. They are in grades 5 to 7, and they are here with their teacher, Mr. Carr, and some adults. Would the members please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The administrative assistant from my office, Wendy Twomey, is in the gallery today. She's here with Linda Angus and her daughter Alex Bissley. I understand that Alex has just completed grade 6 at Sir James Douglas Elementary School with straight As, which is a nice accomplishment. Alex is starting her summer holidays today by having lunch at the Legislature and watching question period. I ask all members of the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today, visiting with us from Broxbourne, England, is my brother Michael Petter. It is his first visit to the Legislature, and I'm delighted that he is here. I'm also delighted that he is accompanied by my mother Lisl Petter. I ask the House to make them both feel very welcome.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Roger Jones, a resident and very active member of our community in New Westminster. I ask all members of the House to please join me in making him welcome.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to have my youngest son, William, in the gallery today. William is down here for a couple of days to watch the proceedings in the House. I'd like to also say that I'm very proud of William; he just got straight As in grade 6. I'd like you to make him welcome.

E. Gillespie: I ask the House to join me in welcoming a family from my constituency of Comox Valley. Ross and Margaret Griffiths-Cochrane are visiting in the gallery, along with their children Laura, Jamie and Stephen.

Introduction of Bills

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1998

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Bill 41 introduces two measures that were announced in Budget '98 as part of our government's three-year plan to stimulate the economy, enhance the competitiveness of B.C. businesses, encourage investment and create jobs. The first measure is a production services tax credit targeted at both Canadian and foreign film and television producers. Effective June 1, 1998, this new incentive provides a refundable corporate income tax credit equal to 11 percent of qualifying labour expenditures incurred in B.C. and paid to B.C. residents in making a film or television production.

The second measure contained in Bill 41 is a mining exploration tax credit that is available to both companies and individual prospectors to encourage and increase their exploration activities. This refundable tax credit is equal to 20 percent of eligible exploration expenses incurred in British Columbia after July 31, 1998.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FIRST NATIONS TREATY PROCESS AND NON-ABORIGINAL VOTING RIGHTS

G. Campbell: Last week, hon. Speaker, a draft copy of a secretly negotiated agreement between the Westbank Indian band and the federal government was made public. Seven thousand property tax payers living on the Westbank reserve were horrified to learn that if this deal goes ahead, they will forever be denied one of the most basic democratic rights in Canada. This will prohibit those taxpayers from voting on either their local government representation or the laws and taxes which will be imposed upon them.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: when was he first made aware of the Westbank agreement-in-principle? Does he support the principles that it embodies?

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, given that it's a federal matter, with regret I must take the question on notice.

The Speaker: A different line of attack, I presume, Leader of the Official Opposition?

G. Campbell: Attack, hon. Speaker?

The Speaker: I beg your pardon. I take the word back.

G. Campbell: I'm searching for some answers here.

The Speaker: A pursuit of the question.

G. Campbell: A different line of questioning, however, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: A good way to put it.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'm sure that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will agree that one of the most fundamental rights we have in Canada, in a democracy, is equal voting

[ Page 9334 ]

rights. I assume that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would agree that it was wrong that aboriginal people in Canada were denied voting rights for some time.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: does he believe that two wrongs make a right? Will he stand up and ensure that all citizens of Canada, regardless of where they live, have equal voting rights regardless of any aboriginal self-government agreements?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I did take the question on notice, and I can't violate the rules now.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: All right. Now that I am speaking, I obviously can't hide behind a procedural point, so I won't -- but with caution. A cautionary note to the member is that we're talking about a reserve which is entirely, completely under federal jurisdiction. For me to comment on what is happening on reserve land is quite simply inappropriate. I don't have sufficient detail. Therefore I'm not about to add fuel to the fire, if indeed there is a fire burning out there. So I'm asking the member, I guess, to be a little bit sensitive to the delicacy of the problem.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am sensitive to the delicacy of the problem. I am sensitive to the concerns that are expressed by literally thousands of people who are Westbank residents. But I'm also concerned about the concerns expressed by British Columbians. They would like to know what principles will be embodied in any kind of self-government agreement that this government may agree to.

Let me ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs this question: would he work to oppose any kind of self-government agreement that would in fact give aboriginal communities and band laws supremacy over federal or provincial laws? Will he ensure that provincial and federal laws have paramountcy in any self-government agreement?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I would refer the member to the agreement-in-principle that we now have extant between ourselves and the Nisga'a, which is a pretty clear enunciation of what our views are regarding self-government and the relationship between federal Crown and the provincial Crown vis-à-vis the legislative and legal framework. The other document is simply the principles for settlement of claims, which we published almost two years ago. So I think that's a pretty clear statement of what the provincial government's position is vis-à-vis post-treaty legal rights and entitlements in terms of first nations people.

M. de Jong: Well, if that is the blueprint, as the minister is indicating, he should also know that this side of the House and a great majority of British Columbians disagree with that blueprint, are opposed to that blueprint. The question that we're asking the minister today is . . . . It's clear, whether he likes it or not, that the federal government is prepared to agree to a form of self-government that is based on ethnicity and that will allow for band laws to take paramountcy over federal and provincial laws.

What we're asking him to do today is to stand up and demand of the federal government equal voting rights for non-aboriginal citizens who live on particular aboriginal lands in British Columbia. Will he insist on truly municipal-style government in British Columbia that assures us that provincial and federal laws in Canada will take precedence, just as they do in every single community across this country?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I would be prepared to give the member that assurance, certainly based on what we have said thus far and as far as I understand the member's question. Everything we have done is consistent with that. In the Nisga'a AIP, for example, we talk about the laws of general application still obtaining; we talk about meeting or beating our laws in terms of wildlife protection and fisheries; we talk about the fact that the Charter of Rights and the constitution of Canada will still obtain; we talk about the Criminal Code of Canada still obtaining.

So it seems to me that all of those things taken together would certainly mean that the answer to the member's question is an affirmative -- yes, indeed.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The Nisga'a AIP denies to non-Nisga'a -- non-aboriginal people -- the right to vote, that basic and fundamental tenet of our democracy in Canada. That's something that the minister glosses over in fairly short order. The federal government is embarking upon a strategy that is going to divide this province into a number of little fiefdoms. It is going to create a jurisdictional overlap, a nightmare, and the only people who are going to get rich, I'm sorry to say, are the lawyers who will be fighting those jurisdictional overlaps for years and years to come.

The question for the minister today is: will he stand up for British Columbians, who are looking for these agreements to truly embody equality; stand up for the British Columbians who are demanding the right to vote for a government that is going to impose taxes on them from here to ever after?

Hon. D. Lovick: My job from the beginning, since taking on the significant responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, has been to represent the interests of the rest of us in the province as well as first nations. Clearly, in doing so, all I can do now is enunciate the point I just made a moment ago: that the laws of general application will continue to apply, that the Criminal Code will still apply and obtain, that the constitution and the Charter will still obtain. I think I've given about as much in the way of assurance to the member as I possibly can.

Unfortunately, as I listen to these questions, I begin to hear the sound of marching feet. It begins to sound a bit like the one-law-for-all kind of silliness which is unfortunately out there. I hope I'm not misrepresenting or misunderstanding the point being made.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

FIRST NATIONS TREATY PROCESSAND AMENDING FORMULAS

G. Plant: There's another issue raised by the Westbank self-government deal that is equally troubling. While I appreciate that the minister says he basically hasn't seen the Westbank self-government agreement-in-principle, I think that the

[ Page 9335 ]

Given the importance of self-government agreements generally, I want to know whether the minister supports this approach to amendment or whether it is his view that no amendments should be possible to agreements like this without ensuring that the matter comes back before Parliament or the B.C. Legislature. In other words, will the people have a say in amending agreements with aboriginal people?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, this sounds suspiciously like the question we began with that I took on notice, asking me to comment on the specifics of this one -- which, again, I simply can't do. If the member is asking me to extrapolate in general terms -- you know, how will we deal . . . ? All I can do is respond in terms of specificity and say what we said about Nisga'a -- namely, that there will be a free vote in this Legislature before any agreement is signed.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: The issue that I wanted to raise and attempted to raise was the issue of amendment: what happens after you have an agreement? How can it be changed? That is an issue raised in the Nisga'a agreement, and it is an issue that is part of the treaty process which this government is participating in with aboriginal groups across British Columbia. It's an issue that I say, with respect, is pretty darned important. The question I want to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is this: what are the instructions that he has given his treaty negotiators with respect to amending formulas?

Hon. D. Lovick: We are on the threshold now, we like to believe, of negotiating the first modern treaty in British Columbia history with the Nisga'a. I for one am proud and excited about the prospect of doing so. To ask me to now come out from the table in the negotiating room and start talking about what is on the table would be, quite frankly, (

a) irresponsible and (

b) disrespectful to the people with whom we're negotiating. All I can say is that I would ask the members opposite to cut us a little slack and be patient, because I'm hoping we'll have something to say very soon.

TRANSFER OF CARDIAC PATIENT AND HOSPITAL WAIT-LISTS

S. Hawkins: Last Thursday Mr. Ivan Fehr, who is a senior citizen visiting in the Kelowna area, was taken to Kelowna General Hospital with chest pains, and on Saturday night the cardiologist determined that he needed to be transferred to a cardiac surgery unit. But when the air ambulance was called to take Mr. Fehr back to Edmonton, where his doctor and a hospital bed were waiting, the Ministry of Health refused, and instead he was sent to St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. This decision not only left Mr.

Fehr completely alone in Vancouver, but it also bumped all the other patients that were waiting for cardiac surgery at St. Paul's Hospital. So my question is to the Health minister: why on earth would she transfer Mr. Fehr to Vancouver, to St. Paul's Hospital, where there's a huge wait-list for cardiac surgery, when he had a bed waiting at his home hospital in Edmonton?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is the policy of the B.C. Ambulance Service and the government to transfer a patient who is ill to the nearest facility that can provide the necessary care. In this case it was St. Paul's in Vancouver, and my understanding is that that was the agreement and recommendation of the attending physician.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan West.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

S. Hawkins: The Minister of Health . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

S. Hawkins: . . . is ill-informed, if she thinks that is the recommendation of the attending physician. I was called to the hospital on Saturday night at 10:30, and I met with the attending physician, and I met with the patient at his request. He is quoted as saying that that was an asinine decision. The fact is, instead of doing what's best for Mr. Fehr . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, we'll take a moment until the House comes to order.

S. Hawkins: Instead of doing what's best for Mr. Fehr and what's best for all the patients in B.C., this minister is busy making excuses. She knows that this decision is going to cost B.C. taxpayers more. Now St. Paul's Hospital is going to be redoing some very expensive tests on this patient, because there are no records for him at St. Paul's. I ask the minister again: will she admit that her government has failed over and over to manage wait-lists in this province and has again made a very bad decision for this patient and for patients in B.C. by transferring this patient to St. Paul's Hospital?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm still dealing with MLAs being called to a hospital for urgent health cases.

It is the principle to transfer the patient -- in this case, one with a cardiac problem -- to the nearest centre where treatment can be provided, which is what they did. Secondly, there is not going to be an increased cost to British Columbians. There is a reciprocal agreement with the province of Alberta, where this gentleman is from, that his in-hospital

[ Page 9336 ]

medicare costs will be covered, so there is not an additional charge. He was taken to the closest centre that could provide appropriate treatment for him.

Would the member suggest that we, because Edmonton is his home, transfer this patient further away for cardiac care, when St. Paul's Hospital was closer? While I do appreciate . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the minister is just about to finish her statement.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . that his records may not have been housed at St. Paul's Hospital, I do believe that in this day and age, his medical records would be very quickly available from Edmonton.

Tabling Documents

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure to table the response of the Legislative Assembly to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee report, with respect to which I just filed a notice of motion today.

As well, I have the honour to present two reports: "Criminal Injury Compensation Program of British Columbia Report, 1997"; and "Report on Multiculturalism, Government of British Columbia, 1996-97."

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call Motion 50, standing on the order paper in my name.

In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Crown corporation B.C. Transit and of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Motions on Notice

The Speaker: I call the committee Chair for

Section A. In this chamber we'll begin the debate on Motion 50.

The Speaker wishes to make a statement before we begin. The procedure that the House is presently embarked upon is somewhat novel to this House, and a comment on the procedure may be of assistance to the hon. members. Members will be aware that our standing order No. 1 refers us to the practice of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, in the absence of express provisions in our own standing orders or precedents from this assembly. Accordingly, extensive reference has been made to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice .

[2:30]

The House is dealing with the broad category of business generally known as dropped orders. The procedures to be followed arising from a dropped order are outlined in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , twenty-second edition, page 321. The authority quoted states in part as follows:

"A dropped government order may be reinstated for the day following that on which the unexpected adjournment takes place by means of a motion to that effect appearing on that day's order paper in the name of a minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business. The dropped order itself appears printed in italics either at the head of the list of Orders of the Day or at the place where the government wishes it to be taken."

It is therefore the Chair's view that the procedures adopted consequent upon the dropped government order have been correct, in that notice of motion to reinstate has been given and appears on today's Orders as motion on notice No. 50.

The major question that remains unanswered is whether or not the government motion to reinstate Bill 26 to its former position on Orders of the Day is a debatable motion. The Chair is of the view that the motion in question is debatable, but only within the confines of the scope of debate applicable to a business or procedural motion. Such motions relate to the business of the House and are described at page 315 of the twenty-second edition of Erskine May.

The scope of debate on a business or procedural motion does not extend to permit an examination in detail of the subject matter of the motion, but rather directs itself as to the reasons, pro and con, for reinstatement of the order for the adjourned debate on second reading of the bill.

I further refer to Erskine May's twenty-second edition at page 321, where discussing such motions, it states: "If debate occurs on such a motion, it must be strictly limited to the precise object of the motion." I draw an analogy between this motion before the House and a motion to recommit a bill to a Committee of the Whole House, in part or in whole, after the bill has been reported to the House from a Committee of the Whole.

In the circumstances, the Speaker, under the United Kingdom practice, permits a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for recommital to the member who moves the motion and a member who opposes the motion, after which explanations the Speaker puts the question on the motion without further debate. This United Kingdom practice has now been codified in their standing orders and is discussed in the above referred edition of Erskine May at page 542.

In this House, the bill which the government seeks to restore to the order paper is presently at the stage of adjourned debate on second reading. The Chair notes that many members have not yet exercised their right to speak on the motion for second reading; nor have any of the standard amendments to this motion been moved, thereby providing ample opportunity to speak to the substance of the bill in question.

It is, therefore, the Chair's view that the motion in question cannot be distinguished from any other procedural motion and is debatable only to the extent of the mechanics of reinstatement. The merit of the bill will be fully canvassed when, and if, the motion for reinstatement passes.

I recognize the Government House Leader.

REINSTATEMENT OF BILL 26 ON ORDER PAPER

Hon. J. MacPhail: The motion is in my name, so I assumed I would speak to it first.

I will read it into the record: "That the order for the adjourned debate on Second Reading of Bill (No. 26), Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998 be reinstated to the Orders of the Day ." I welcome the opportunity to admit and to acknowledge here that there was a technical error on Thursday, which brought interruption to the debate on Bill 26. This motion is necessary in order to reverse that technical error. The motion is in order and simply reinstates the second reading of Bill 26 to the point where it was prior to the House being adjourned on Thursday.

I thank the Speaker for her opening advisory comments. Hon. Speaker, you have cited Erskine May, twenty-second

[ Page 9337 ]

edition, at page 321, and that would form part of my address to motion 50 as well -- about a dropped order being reinstated.

I would ask for us all to consider that in our jobs in this Legislature we have important work to do, and that we do carry on our work in a way that tries at times to accommodate concerns. There has been accommodation of concerns around the precedent set on controversial bills -- and this is not in fact sought in any way. Our motion does not seek to reinstate the debate on the bill without proper notice to each and every member in this House. It is time now, though, to proceed back to the debate. As you have noted, hon. Speaker, there is ample opportunity for debate on the piece of legislation concerned in this motion -- Bill 26 -- and we welcome that debate.

I would also just ask the House to consider that there have been times when the government has sought to accommodate the opposition members' needs. In fact, we have made whole the opposition on occasions when technical errors have placed them in difficulties. I believe that that is the way we should be accommodating the business of the House.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I would pay heed to your advice -- I assume it was advice -- on how the House of Commons conducts its business in this area. I believe you read that one speaker from the government addresses the motion, one speaker from the opposition and then the question will be put. Certainly that advice is welcomed and heeded by us.

The Speaker: I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I take note of your comments, although I don't recall them being quite as characterized by the House Leader from the government side. I recall your comments in their entirety.

In looking at this issue as it developed over Thursday and Friday and throughout the weekend, it became clear that in fact the precedents in a case like this, for a general dropped order, are numerous. At one point in the late 1800s and into the early part of this century, it was quite common for items to lapse as dropped motions in Great Britain almost every Friday afternoon. As a matter of course, the items were reinstated on the order paper on the Monday -- in many cases without the House even talking about it or a real motion being passed. In fact, the Clerks just took it upon themselves to put the item in the order paper, and so it went.

However, this is a very, very unique situation which has occurred. In fact, it is not something . . . . When one looks back at the precedents, one can't even find enough precedents to fill one hand. There aren't even a handful of precedents for a situation like this. In fact, there is probably only one instance that matches directly what occurred on Thursday. I have some precedents and copies that at this point I'd ask leave to table and have them given to the Speaker for reference, if I may.

The Speaker: The member tables material.

G. Farrell-Collins: What I have given to the Speaker are three precedents in particular. One of them is from 1917, which is a fairly clear one.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I hear comments from the Deputy Premier. If he wishes to rise on a point of order, he's welcome to do so. I haven't heard that, so perhaps he can wait for his turn in the debate.

The 1917 precedent is fairly brief and fairly clear; it merely states . . . . At that time -- it was November 13, 1917 -- a Mr. Toulmin asked, on a similar area, whether he could make remarks upon the motion and was told by the Speaker: "Yes, if they are relevant."

There are two other precedents which I think are better indications of what we're dealing with today as a result of what took place on Thursday. I'll start with the one that took place in 1923, because in that case, it was again a dropped motion that resulted in a contentious matter. It was an extremely contentious matter before the House.

The government at that time tried to reintroduce the motion under the dropped-order procedure -- similar to what the government is attempting to do today -- and following the standing orders of the day, did exactly what it is the government has done today: they brought forward a motion. The motion was in order. The item had been entered in italics in Orders of the Day . Everything complied virtually identically with what we're dealing with today.

But, hon. Speaker, in the copies that I've forwarded, if you have a chance to read through them, you'll see that in the 1923 scenario, as that debate went back and forth . . . . There were 17 speakers, and the debate went on for several hours -- although I must say that the Speaker at that time did do his job in drawing members' attention to the narrow scope of the debate, that it wasn't a broad, wide-ranging substitution for second reading of the matter at hand.

In fact, it was a fairly contained debate on the merits of what happened and on whether or not, given the uniqueness of that situation, the House should provide the government with the privilege, quite frankly, of reintroducing the motion, given the way in which it dropped off the order paper. That, I think, is the matter that's at hand for debate today.

If one looks at another precedent from the House of Commons, on July 14, 1884, a similar occurrence happened. I believe it was in that case where there was actually a motion that dropped off the order paper. There was a motion after the budget debate that the House go into Committee of Supply. That was treated back then as very close to, if not identical to -- and there was some debate at that time -- a confidence motion, because it is, in fact, the motion that's moved in response to the budget debate. In that case, the government lost a division -- actually lost a division.

Then the House adjourned without that matter having been dealt with -- the motion that the Committee of Supply be set up. In that case, there was also extensive debate. There were 15 speakers. Again the debate raged for several hours, within the parameters that were laid out by the Speaker, as to whether or not that issue should be reinstated, how it should be reinstated, why it should be reinstated and the problems thereof. I think those precedents which I pass to the Speaker are very clear.

It's important, when you look at this debate that we're having today on Motion 50, that . . . . What happened was not a technical error, as described by the Government House Leader. It was a deliberate attempt by the opposition to use one of the very few tools that the opposition in British Columbia has available to it to delay a government measure that they feel is not in the best interest of the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the member -- I guess he's still the Minister of Agriculture -- talking. I don't know whether

[ Page 9338 ]

he was ordering takeout or whether he was trying to engage in the debate. If he wants to, he'll be more than able to rise in his place and give his wisdom about the procedures of this House and how it all happened on Thursday: that he was more concerned with dreaming about lunch than he was about passing the government's bill. I await his comments.

If you look at the two instances that I raised earlier, particularly the 1923 and the 1884 scenarios, it's very clear that what happened in those cases, although similar, was significantly different from what happened on Thursday. On Thursday it was a deliberate attempt, strategy and tactic to use one of those tools that's available to the opposition to force a government to stand up and defend its legislation in a meaningful way or to abandon that legislation. That's the question that's before us here today: is the government prepared to defend this legislation?

Should they be entitled to reinstate it, having abandoned the legislation on the order paper on Thursday? Should this House allow them to reinstate it? Those are the questions that are before the House.

We're not arguing about whether or not that's in order but the question of whether or not the government gets to go ahead with that legislation. It is not a decision for the Speaker; it's not a decision for one member of this House. It is a decision for all members of this House to make when the vote on this motion is finally taken. There is no automatic right for the government to reinstate this bill, despite the precedents, despite the history, despite the ruling. That's why this debate is taking place here today.

[2:45]

The debate today must centre around whether or not it is appropriate -- not whether or not it's procedurally correct -- for the government to be let off the hook and to reintroduce this debate, and whether or not this House should allow them to do that. I would argue no in the extreme, because in the two short years since the last election, this government has become one of the most arrogant, irresponsible, pompous governments we've ever seen in the history of British Columbia. This House has made its opinion known on this matter in the past.

This House made its opinion known on the matter which this government abandoned last Thursday and now attempts to reinstate. The public made its opinion clear on this issue last year. Yet the government continues to try and bring it forward. The government knows right now that on Thursday, when they let this issue lapse -- when they let this issue fall off the order paper -- there was significant opposition to it. They knew that at the time. They've heard from opposition members. We're now well into the second reading debate.

Most members of the opposition have participated in the debate, have become involved in the debate and have let their feelings be known on this bill.

When we were sitting there discussing the bill in second reading, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson looked across the House and found two -- count 'em -- members opposite sitting in the chamber. One was the Minister of Agriculture, ordering lunch; the other was the esteemed, knowledgable and much experienced member who is now the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

If either of those members were taking the role of Government House Leader -- I assume one of them must have been -- then one or both of them certainly would have been involved in monitoring the debate and would have made sure that we didn't end up in the position we ended up in today. If the government was so eager to have this bill brought forward and to move this bill through the various stages of debate, where was the government on Thursday? They were down in the dining room having lunch.

If they were so eager, so adamant, so intent on driving this issue through the Legislature for the second year in a row, where were they? Why weren't they here standing up for this?

It's not the first time that members of the government have been -- how shall I say? -- otherwise occupied. I can't recall how many quorum calls there have been in the last week, trying to drag the enthusiastic members opposite into the chamber to stand up and defend this legislation. One has to ask oneself why it is that when the House expressed itself and, more importantly, when those two members opposite expressed their support so enthusiastically for this legislation on Thursday . . . . What happened between Thursday and today that requires this piece of legislation to be resubmitted for second reading?

The reality is this: they don't really care about the legislation -- or some of them don't care about the legislation, anyway. I know the Premier cares about the legislation, because he has a debt to repay to the members of the building trades -- the executives, the big guys who supported the government at length.

The Speaker: The hon. member is aware of the rules regarding the debate on Motion 50 -- that is, on the technical merits of reinstatement, not on the substance of the bill to be discussed later, perhaps. Member, continue.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I take your guidance.

I was merely reflecting on what the motive might be for the government's urgency to have this bill reinstated. As has been done elsewhere, legislation lapses on order papers throughout parts of the Commonwealth the world over. Legislation is introduced, it's partially debated, and then it dies on the order paper.

Indeed, I recall when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin used to be a minister and was also Government House Leader. I believe it was 1993. At that time a number of bills were left on the order paper and in fact died a natural death at the prorogation of the House. I think there were six or eight bills where that happened.

When one is looking at the order paper and at the amount of work this House has to do -- the amount of work left to be done, the number of bills that need to be completed and the estimates that need to be completed -- one wonders why it is that this government doesn't just follow up on what was clearly evident on Thursday: the fact that they have no desire to proceed with this bill. They have no desire to recommit it.

What happened somehow between Thursday and now is that the government has rethought it. They've decided that this is indeed urgent. All the members -- the other 36 members opposite -- who decided to be elsewhere at the time have suddenly had a conversion on the road to Damascus, so to speak, and decided that this piece of legislation is one of the most important things that they need to do this session.

I ask the members opposite: where was the urgency in them that we see today, demanding that this bill be reinstated on the order paper as Motion 50? Where was that urgency on Thursday? The House can only test the urgency of an issue by the vehemence and the passion which members opposite express in debate -- by the urgency of their debate and by the urgency of the logic behind their debate. We haven't seen it. When this House is asked today to reinstate a matter that was

[ Page 9339 ]

rightly, procedurally and correctly dropped from the order paper on Thursday, in a direct and deliberate move under the standing orders, one has to ask: why? Where was the passion on Thursday? Where was the desire to have this issue moved forward? There was a good half-hour left for debate. If we're trying to get this work done and get it out there, and if it's so good for the people of the British Columbia, why was the Minister of Agriculture so anxious to get to lunch?

An Hon. Member: That's a good question.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's a good question. The Minister of Labour asked me the question. Without reflecting on the presence of members in the House, I don't know what it was that the Minister of Labour was doing. I don't know if he had already tucked into the ham sandwich or whether he was on dessert as of 11:30, but he wasn't in here, and he wasn't defending the bill passionately, as I would have thought he would have been doing as the minister responsible for it.

I would like to know where the members opposite gained this passion since Thursday. Where was the passion on Thursday that the members are supposed to have?

Hon. D. Lovick: Subterranean fires always burn brightest.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the Minister of Labour. I'm sure he's going to get up and defend his bill, because if this House decides to reject Motion 50, if it decides that it's not going to reinstate the bill -- which is a decision that only this House can make -- then I would expect and hope that the Minister of Labour would accept that verdict and move off it. So I expect that he would engage in the debate today. I would expect that he would stand up, given his procedural wisdom, too, having spent time in the chair which the Speaker now . . . .

M. de Jong: That will be a short speech.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Matsqui tells me it will be a short speech. Having heard the member opposite speak, I can imagine it would go on for days.

Hon. Speaker, given the fact that the member sat on your esteemed throne for a period of time and oversaw the procedures of this House, I would love to hear the wisdom of the member opposite as to the rationale and the desire and the reason for Motion 50 -- why this House should vote in favour of Motion 50 and why it is . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He's doing it already, and I thank him. He says it's not on the order paper; it's subjugated. That's exactly why we need the wisdom of the Minister of Labour and why we need him to stand up and tell us exactly the reason, the rationale for why he feels the bill that is in his hands needs to be debated in this House. If nothing else is done, what we will have is a piece of legislation that has, for all intents and purposes, disappeared from this session. What we need to have on this side of the House . . . .

Who knows? We may vote in favour of Motion 50 if the members opposite can convince us of the urgency of the debate. That's what this House is all about: members offer their wisdom, their point of point, their ideas, their vision to the other side and to their colleagues, and try and sway them to their point of view. I'm still unswayed on Motion 50, but I can't wait . . . . I am looking forward with bated breath to the input that's going to be given by the Minister of Labour to this issue. I can't wait to hear what he has to say.

I can't wait to hear what it was that transpired on Thursday that saw him unable, for whatever reason, to debate the bill at that time, to defend it, to rush to its defence as it fell off Mount Everest into the cavern. Where was the Minister of Labour to catch that bill and put it back in its duly appointed place on the order paper? He was unable to do that on Thursday; I hope that he's able to do it today. I still need some convincing. I think some of my colleagues still need some convincing.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Chilliwack says he's close to being convinced that Motion 50 should pass and that this bill should be reinstated on the order paper. I am a little further away, but I'll let the member for Chilliwack decide on his own. Why don't we on this side of the House make it a free vote as to whether or not Motion 50 should pass and whether or not Bill 26 should be reinstated on the order paper?

I know that at various times in this House the Minister of Labour has had to cut his elucidations short, given the clock. I hope that he will take full advantage of it today to partake in this debate and elucidate for us at length his wisdom about why his bill, which has dropped off the order paper -- a bill that was in his charge -- should be reinstated on the order paper. So far, nothing the Government House Leader has said leads me to believe that that's the case. She says it was a technical error; it wasn't a technical error. She says that the government has been accommodating in the past. Well, hon.

Speaker, there's a difference between a technical error and a deliberate strategy. The minister, I think, would understand that, as would the Government House Leader.

[3:00]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Coquitlam-Ottawa chuckles that it's a deliberate . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister of points of order chuckles that it was a deliberate attempt . . . . He can look back at Hansard and the comments from the previous night from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, when he attempted to do the same thing. It's just that there were members and ministers of the Crown present in the House who were a little more awake than the minister from Coquitlam-Ottawa was on Thursday, and they rescued the debate. They rescued Bill 26 as it was about to fall from the order paper; they rescued it.

They did their jobs, sitting there as ministers of the Crown, defending their colleagues' motions, defending their colleagues' legislation. They were in this House armed, ready and girded for battle. They saw that ploy coming, and they parried that blow, and the bill stood on the order paper to remain to fight the next day.

Unfortunately, the next day, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson rose to launch a similar parry, to dive and thrust forward with his sword, the black knight opposite stood there like a Monty Python character, arms and legs gone, bleeding profusely, saying: "Come on back. I'm not quite dead yet."

An Hon. Member: It's only a flesh wound.

[ Page 9340 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. He was saying, "It's only a flesh wound," and the Minister of Agriculture rushed to his aid with a ham sandwich to try and bandage those flesh wounds.

An Hon. Member: To give him some strength to carry on.

G. Farrell-Collins: To give him some strength to carry on.

So one has to ask what happened. I mean, what did happen on Thursday? Why should this bill be reinstated on the order paper? You know, if you look through the precedents and similar things -- although there are very few -- I would say that in most of those cases, with the exception of probably one, it was a technical error on behalf of the government. It was a technical error, and to quote a learned friend of mine: "When you're stuck with your tail in the gate, one usually looks a little sheepish and asks to have your tail removed from the gate."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, I believe . . . . I don't know what it was. Whether it was or not, again, I'm sure that if the Minister of Labour would participate in the debate, he could clear up all my lack of education and fill in all the blanks in my classical education.

But the point to be made is this, and it's a legitimate one for this debate: if you look at the precedents, if you look at cases where bills or significant motions have been inadvertently omitted from the order paper -- and even at those cases where it was deliberate -- it's clear from the debate that discussions took place and that the government realized they had themselves in a spot.

Rather than arrogantly plodding forward in an attempt to plow through the rest of the members of the House, like a big snowplow, they went back to the members opposite, through what's termed as the usual channels, which are House Leaders and Whips speaking to each other in trying to resolve a problem and coming to some agreement. Offers have been made, accommodations have been met, discussions have taken place, and options are available.

My cell phone was on all weekend. I was awaiting . . . . Like a 16-year-old waiting for a date, my phone was on . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. The minister says that I'm still waiting. I've had a few dates since I was 16 -- not many, but a few.

I waited there, hoping to get a call from the government. I expected it. As Erskine May and I were snuggled up together for the weekend, I was awaiting a call from the government. Looking at the Hansard debates and the precedents, I thought it was pretty clear from all of these debates that the next step is the government talking to the opposition and some accommodation being made. But, hon. Speaker, nothing. My poor little old phone didn't ring at all. The members from the opposite side, the government members, never called. That's fine.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I see -- the friends. Lots of friends phoned, but I can tell the difference. I'm wise enough for that.

The reality is that there are points here where accommodations may or may not have been made, but there was no exploration of that. All I can guess is that the government intends to use its overwhelming legislative majority -- its overwhelming mandate from the public in the last election, its overwhelming percentage of the popular vote in the last election -- to do what it does so well and has done so well for the last two years: divine that it has all the answers. Once again government can do anything it wants -- to quote the Minister of Forests -- and it is going to plow ahead with this.

There's no attempt to look for some way of having the issue examined by committees, no attempt to look at other ways to deal with this issue, no attempt to find other ways to move it forward on the legislative agenda for another time or in some other fashion. The government intends to use its overwhelming public mandate -- the overwhelming mandate it got from the voters of British Columbia -- to plow through this House once again and have this bill reinstated on the order paper and push it through.

Hon. Speaker, what is left for the opposition to do but do what we're doing now? Again, that's to open the little toolbox that the opposition has left to it -- the very little toolbox here in British Columbia -- and try to make the government understand that while most of the time government can do what it wants, government can't always do what it wants. And it can't do it in this case.

When I look at these debates, I have to ask myself: are we doing what's in the best interests of the people of British Columbia, procedurally, by reinstating this bill on the order paper? I would argue that we're not. Forget the merits of the bill itself for a minute. Let's just talk about what's happening here: the procedure. Well, I don't believe there are merits to the bill, but I said I was going to forget about the merits of the bill. I'll save that debate for second reading, because I'm sure that the Minister of Labour or the Speaker would call me to order if I were to discuss the merits of the bill itself.

So I won't discuss the merits or the lack of merits of the bill, for fear of being called to order.

What I will do, however, is talk about the process that's in place here. You have a piece of legislation. This isn't like the donation-of-food act. This is a bill that -- without discussing its merits -- has been highly contentious, and it has been highly contentious for two years or more. In the last election and prior to the last election, the government assured us that all the changes they were going to make to the Labour Code had been made. The question we have now is: does the government have the mandate to reinstate it on the order paper today and then push it through?

Given that they have no overwhelming public mandate to do that and given that the rules of the House are clear as to what will happen to this bill in the event that this motion is defeated or withdrawn . . . . It is clear that the government does not have that mandate; it's clear that this bill should not be reinstated to the order paper. It is clear that this House should vote against Motion 50. It is clear that this government should learn a lesson, and the lesson they should learn is that government doesn't always get to do anything it wants.

The people of B.C. have a say about it, the people in this House have a say about it, and the members in this House should be standing up and voting against Motion 50 and putting Bill 26 where it belongs -- in legislative limbo forever.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, as I listened carefully to your remarks prior to the commencement of this debate . . . .

The Speaker: If the hon. member would take his seat, a point of order has been raised by the Minister of Labour.

[ Page 9341 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies to the member, hon. Speaker, but I read carefully as well as listened to your ruling, and the only authority you quoted was indeed the Speaker of the United Kingdom. You said as follows: " . . . the Speaker, under the United Kingdom practice, permits a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for recommital to the member who moves the motion and a member who opposes the motion, after which explanations the Speaker puts the question on the motion without further debate." I assumed that that was indeed your ruling. Therefore the question is now in order, and we are not having a debate. Could the Speaker clarify for me?

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order.

The Speaker: On a point of order, I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too am mindful of the analysis or the similarities that the Speaker gave in her ruling, hon. Speaker. You, hon. Speaker, gave us as best you could some parallels as to how this debate may or may not go forward and looked at the motion for recommital. But I submitted at the beginning of my comments -- I assume that the Speaker has had a chance to look at those precedents, and I'll refer to them again . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: No. The member asks if I'm challenging the Chair. If I may just comment to that in my point of order, I have no intention of challenging the Chair. What I do intend to do is take the

interpretation given by the Speaker, which was not exclusively that which was quoted by the member but which was used in an illustrative fashion by the Speaker in her ruling -- which I listened to very, very carefully, I might add . . . . It was offered in the illustrative fashion of a parallel and how this motion might be treated. It was not to the exclusion of all other precedents in the history of the British Commonwealth.

It was not to all other precedents that are there, and it was not to say: "This is the only way it shall be done." It was an attempt by the Speaker to do the best she could in finding the nearest parallel for the debate of a motion like this and to decide some parameters around it.

Hon. Speaker, I would argue that in keeping with your ruling, quite frankly, the precedents from 1884 and from 1923, in which case 15 and 17 speakers, respectively, made representations on whether or not the identical motion . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm having trouble making my point of order.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Continue with your point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I did listen very, very carefully to the ruling of the Speaker, and I have kept within the ruling of the Speaker -- to a T. But I do not believe that the Speaker's ruling said that that is the only way that this matter shall be dealt with. Indeed, if that is the case, then I would say that a serious breach of the precedents has been made. Therefore I can't imagine that that was the

interpretation that the Speaker wanted to have made of her ruling.

So I would argue that in keeping with the Speaker's parallels, as best she could draw them, given the limited precedents that are there, the comments made by myself . . . . And if the member for Kamloops-North Thompson or the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast or other members wish to engage in this debate, they should be entitled to. As the Minister of Labour, who has been a Speaker of this House, will know -- and this is an important point for this point of order -- all wise Speakers take the tone of the House and sense the House. This is not a crystal-clear precedent.

There is not a crystal-clear precedent in existence that says that this issue shall be debated by only two members. It is not that way, hon. Speaker.

Therefore, when members of this House rise on an issue as unforeseen as this, a wise Speaker, I would think, would interpret the precedents in an open way that allowed members, if the House so wished, to participate in that debate, keeping within the limited parameters that the precedents have offered and the limited parameters presented by the Speaker's comments earlier on.

The Speaker: I thank you for your comments. I would like to draw your attention, hon. members, as the ruling is circulated, that the Chair ruled on page 3 that the motion in question is a debatable motion. The reference to the United Kingdom permitting a brief explanatory statement was indeed an analogy. On the basis of that, the scope of the debate is the issue, not the number of members who speak.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity that you've afforded me and my colleagues to participate in this debate. It seemed to me, as I listened carefully to your ruling initially, that you were obliged to operate in pretty much uncharted waters. Previously, the precedents seemed to be so few, and I think you made it very clear that the subject of the debate is the reasons, pro and con, for whether this motion should or should not be passed by this House.

A point that seems to be raised repeatedly in and out of the House by members opposite is whether or not this was a technical error or a deliberate move on the part of the official opposition in attempting to deal with Bill 26, on which, of course, we were engaged in second reading debate. I'm obviously in a unique position to comment on that question, because I was the member who had the floor at the time. Indeed, speaking personally from my experience, for me the second reading debate of Bill 26 has been very much a stop-and-go experience.

On Wednesday night I attempted to proceed with my remarks in second reading. I got only a little way into them, and the House ran out of time. I reserved the opportunity to continue, but at that time and before I actually reserved the right to continue speaking on second reading, I did attempt to adjourn the House rather than adjourn the debate. Due to the uproar from the government side and the usual rude behaviour and catcalling and so on, hon. Speaker, you were not able to hear the motion that I made and in fact paraphrased a different motion -- that being the one you thought I made, which was to adjourn debate. That had not in fact been my motion, and I think Hansard bears that out.

[3:15]

In any event, I offer that as clarification that there was indeed nothing accidental about my motion on the morning of last Thursday, when we continued second reading on Bill 26. In fact, I'd been watching very closely for an opportunity to

[ Page 9342 ]

make that very motion and indeed praying for that opportunity, because my colleagues and I believe, and people throughout this great province of ours all believe -- business people, chambers of commerce, business associations, taxpayers and unemployed people who hope for work, which can only flow from a rejuvenated economy -- that the matter we've been dealing with is a tremendously important one and that successful passage of that bill would be a very negative thing for the economy of British Columbia. We don't want to see it happen.

The official opposition has vowed time and again to use every tool at its disposal to defeat, derail and in any other way possible destroy that piece of legislation. As the Opposition House Leader said, we have precious few tools in our toolbox. Sometimes I hold that toolbox up to the light, and I try to see if there isn't something in it that's stuck to the bottom, because there's so little there for us to actually use in attempting to deal with some of the terribly wrongheaded and mistaken initiatives that this government brings on.

We believe that this tampering with the Labour Code is the first and worst example of this.

Certainly I was watching, and had been watching ever since debate began on Bill 26, for an opportunity to make that motion and see if indeed we could kill Bill 26. Our understanding, as a result of advice in the past, was that our only hope of successfully killing a bill like that was to make that motion during debate rather than moving to adjourn the debate. So I had resolved in my own mind that that is exactly what I'd do if I got the opportunity, and as I said, I prayed every day that I'd get a chance to do that.

If that was the only way that we could defeat such a destructive, wrongheaded and dangerous piece of legislation, then I hoped for that opportunity. On Wednesday night, I thought I might have it because the government side of the House was in such disarray. I didn't have it, as it turned out, because you didn't hear what I was saying. Perhaps it would have been defeated at that time anyway.

I offer all that as part of just crafting a picture of the context in which my motion of Thursday morning was made. Certainly the events of Thursday morning didn't unfold quite the way we had anticipated. We believed initially, when I reserved on Wednesday night, that I would be resuming speaking on Thursday morning in second reading of Bill 26. Then word came that evening that the government wished to discuss the Income Tax Amendment Act first thing on Thursday morning, and it was not a particularly contentious piece of legislation.

So our understanding was that the government had set aside one hour to deal with the Income Tax Amendment Act. On our side of the House, we were expecting to resume second reading debate on Bill 26 at 11 o'clock that morning. The minister and the government members were to be prepared for that as well.

One of the things that forms part of this context for me, hon. Speaker, is that throughout the second reading debate, I had listened very closely to the remarks of the government members opposite. I'm interested, for one thing -- and I believe it's a tremendously important piece of legislation -- but I also had a particular role with regard to this piece of legislation. I'm the designated deputy critic for Labour, as well as Aboriginal Affairs, for the official opposition, and the critic had asked me if I would manage the speaking order from the point of view of the opposition.

Certainly he has many other duties, and I was happy to take that on. So I was keeping a careful record, of course, of which of our speakers had spoken and when, and whether we had the right number left for each particular day's debate, and I was keeping track of which speakers opposite were speaking to second reading as well.

One of the things I noticed as I listened carefully to the members opposite was that the members really didn't understand the history of this particular piece of legislation. A number of them made remarks, such as: how could we have possibly opposed first reading of Bill 26 when we hadn't even seen the bill yet? But what they didn't appear to understand was that we had had that bill since February. The people who drafted the bill had done us the favour of publishing this particular document, "Looking to the Future," and in the back of it is a copy of the legislation that they recommended.

I won't dwell long on this, hon. Speaker. It looks to me like you might be having qualms about whether I'm on point. I'm trying to paint this picture for you of what was going on in my mind and why I want the government members to believe the truth, which is that this was no technical error. It wasn't some fumble of inadvertently moving the wrong motion but indeed something that I took as a very serious opportunity, which I had a tremendous obligation to take advantage of, in doing everything that I can as a member of the official opposition, which has sworn to defeat this legislation by any means possible.

As I wrap up with comments about this document published by Stephen Kelleher and Stan Lanyon, in which they reviewed this whole matter of whether or not we ought to have sectoral bargaining in British Columbia . . . . The legislation they put in the back of that document is almost identical to what was tabled in the form of Bill 26 in this Legislature. In fact, this tiny document of less than half a page, with a lot of spaces in it, has the only changes there are between this "Looking to the Future" document and its draft legislation and Bill 26 itself.

As I say, I've listened to government members speaking in turn and almost by rote, it seemed to me. They seemed to be operating under the misapprehension that nobody in this House had seen the legislation -- obviously with the exception of the minister, who has forewarning of these things.

They seemed to believe that none of us had seen it until the day before it was called for second reading -- since of course, the government tabled it one day and called second reading the next -- when in fact we'd all had it since February. And I believe that they had all had it since February but hadn't seen it somehow. Unless someone goes around and pulls the pieces of material out of the NDP MLAs' in-baskets that the government doesn't deem it desirable for them to read . . . .

I hope that isn't the case: you know, mind-police running around and restricting the information that government members are allowed to read. They should have read this material in February. This is the flagship piece of legislation, I believe, for this entire legislative session.

Part of our context was, as I say, that we feel determined to defeat this legislation and that it's tremendously important to the public and the economy of British Columbia that indeed this legislation be defeated. As I listened to the members opposite, I began to realize that they really don't know. They really don't understand that this is something that is all part of a plan that has unfolded. It looks a whole lot like the son of Bill 44 from last year. I see you shaking your head, hon. Speaker, and I'll try not to try your patience here. I am just trying, again, to flesh out this context that . . . .

The members opposite, as they spoke, seemed to me to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how this thing has come along and where it has actually come from, as it made its way from Bill 44 into Bill 26 in draft form in this particular document. Then, suddenly, it was tabled as a bill in this legislature, Bill 26, and then called for second reading immediately the next day.

[ Page 9343 ]

Of course, part of that context for us was that we had been assured by the government that there wouldn't be any debate on legislation until the end of June, that the government had the desire to complete its budget and to not have to pursue interim supply. So it seemed bizarre that suddenly this debate was launched the very day after the bill was tabled. Perhaps that is why the government members opposite seem to believe that this legislation was something new to us, when, indeed, it wasn't new at all. There was practically nothing in it -- a couple of minor changes, as I demonstrated in this document . . . . Other than that, it is very much a child of Bill 44.

Another thing that struck me as the government members were speaking was that they were all reading from the same prepared text of quotes from members of the official opposition. A large number of these quotes -- and again, I am trying to flesh out and paint a picture of the context in which I saw this bill . . . . As I considered how to best proceed on it, it was clear to me that . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the member has the floor.

K. Krueger: . . . someone, some mole, was in the NDP organization -- the kind of person who drafts talking points for organizations. Of course, all big corporations are probably into that these days; I know Crown corporations are. Certainly political parties are. The federal government actually sends around its talking points throughout the country for everybody to have a look at. It seems a remarkably open way to conduct government in Canada.

Clearly someone had prepared talking points for the government members opposite, and they would raise the same little piece of a quote from various members of the official opposition, including myself -- out of context and very much twisted. Someone had prepared these little messages that the government members were to try to get across.

It struck me that they had been coerced, somehow, into wasting their time reading, studying and memorizing those, rather than actually reading the legislation or, indeed, the correspondence from the many constituents in the business community throughout the province who are tremendously concerned about Bill 26.

Again, that was part of the context for me. I thought: my goodness, those people opposite seem to actually believe what they are saying. They seem to actually believe that this is a modest piece of legislation, because . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Will the member sit down. There's a point of order raised here by the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I've been listening to the member's remarks in light of your ruling. With the broadest and most liberal

interpretation of your ruling, the member is so far from the subject matter of discussing the reasons, pro and con, for the reinstatement of the order -- which was your ruling -- as to be completely out of order. I would ask that he be called to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's come to new lows when the government is scripting its points of order and having them passed out by the Whip.

An Hon. Member: It's the Speaker's ruling.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, the Speaker's ruling. I apologize, then, to the minister.

I'm sure the member has particular comments to make, in that he was the one who actually moved the motion. It's important to understand the motivation for why we're where we are now, if the House is to decide not to . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: The government Whip can get up in the House . . . . I would assume that if he had been here last Thursday, along with the other two members, we wouldn't be here.

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: If I can finish my point of order, hon. Speaker, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has particular input to make because of his moving the motion in the first place. His motivation for doing so is critical for this House and these members in deciding whether or not they should undo the work that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson did. It's important for the members to understand the motivation for his motion last Thursday. It clarifies, certainly for the Government House Leader, that it was not a technical error -- that, in fact, there was an intent to do that.

That's why his comments are particularly important as to why he moved the motion that he did on Thursday.

M. de Jong: Also on the point of order, Madam Speaker, as I have gone through some of the precedents that deal with this largely procedural matter, it is particularly important that the House be apprised of a number of issues -- like what motivated the member involved to make the motion at the particular time that that motion was made. That is important.

It is also important that the House, when you refer to the precedents that deal specifically with this matter, be apprised of whether we were dealing with a contentious versus a non-contentious matter and what was in the mind of the member who made the motion that gives rise to this debate today. Insofar as this is the only member of this House who can provide that information to the House as it considers the issue presently before us, I think it's particularly important that we hear what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has to say.

[3:30]

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't believe it's proper to speak more than once on a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I accept the points that have been made, and I draw attention to those points by the member speaking. I would observe, having listened to the debate and the language carefully, that the remarks are getting perilously close to second reading debate. It does sound rather like second reading debate. I want to encourage the member to speak to the mechanics of the reinstatement.

[ Page 9344 ]

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I respect that very much, and I will try to veer away from being perilously close to any waters that I'm not supposed to venture into. Honestly, what I'm trying to set out here is my personal position as the MLA who happened to have the opportunity to move the particular motion that seems to have created these troubles for us -- to try to explain myself and re-create the context, so that it's clear to you, hon. Speaker, to the other members of this House and indeed for the record how it was that we ended up in the position we're in and why I believe we should not . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, take your seat. I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I want to read into the record your ruling on points of order. The reason . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, there is a point of order being raised at the moment.

Hon. D. Lovick: The point of order that has been offered to this chamber, which we are obligated to abide by -- all right? -- is as follows: " . . . the motion in question is debatable, but only within the confines of the scope of debate applicable to a business or procedural motion." That's point one.

Point two in the Speaker's ruling is: "The scope of debate on a business or procedural motion does not extend to permit an examination in detail of the subject matter of the motion, but rather directs itself as to the reasons, pro and con, for the reinstatement of the order for the adjourned debate on second reading of the bill." As well, the third point made by the Speaker is from Erskine May, twenty-second edition, page 321: "If debate occurs on such a motion, it must be strictly limited to the precise object of the motion." Members on both sides, we all have an obligation to at least abide by the rules.

Let's do so.

The Speaker: I thank the member. I recognize, in response, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would just draw the attention of the Speaker and the Minister of Labour to Hansard debates in the House of Commons, Great Britain, April 11, 1923, where the Speaker ruled: "The Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister is to restore the dropped Order of Supply. The Order was dropped by reason of the incident of yesterday. Therefore, discussion can take place on any matter relevant to the incident which calls for this Motion. That, I think, is quite clear . . . . " That was a ruling of the Speaker of the House of Commons on April 11, 1923.

It is on the identical scenario. The member, as I stated earlier, is doing just that. He is clarifying the matters for the members of the House . . . . Here we are. "Therefore, discussion can take place on any matter relevant to the incident which calls for this Motion." That member is talking about what happened last Thursday, the reason he moved the motion that he did at that time and why his effort last Thursday should not be undone today. That is the whole point of this debate. I think the Minister of Labour should listen to the member opposite, and maybe he would learn something from that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, on all the points of order I would remind all the members of the final paragraph of the Chair's response today: "The motion is debatable only to the extent of the mechanics of the reinstatement." That is the ruling that the Chair has made. I will therefore serve notice, as anyone gets close to second reading debate, that interruptions will occur.

Hon. member, continue -- on the mechanics of the reinstatement, not on second reading.

K. Krueger: I will try to stay within those parameters and those bounds. I will, of course, rely on you to give me the signal if in some way I seem to be digressing from that sincere intent.

The official Opposition House Leader discussed the precedents that we've been able to find on the record for Houses within the British Commonwealth that have found themselves in this particular situation over the course of centuries. Of course, there haven't been very many. There have been many where it was a technical error -- where this sort of thing occurred inadvertently and debate on a piece of legislation was shut down through, apparently, no intent -- perhaps carelessness, negligence or somebody thinking about lunch or a ham sandwich instead of about the matters at hand. It has been quite routine, a pro forma way of going about things to get that legislation back on the rails.

What I've been trying to do here, in my own halting way, is lay out the circumstances from my point of view, in a sincere effort to demonstrate to this House -- and to you, hon. Speaker, and to the record -- exactly what was going on in my mind at the time. I want to help everyone see this issue, of whether this was a technical error or an intentional motion, from the point of view of the person who was in the position of having to make that motion.

The Opposition House Leader has made the point that many government bills have been allowed to die in the past at various stages in the legislative process. Indeed, we have a number of bills in British Columbia that have never been proclaimed, even though they made it all the way through the process. I just got an

article the other day on adult guardianship legislation, for example, that actually made its way through the House and had all-party agreement. People who deem it very important have been waiting for it to be proclaimed, and it hasn't happened. Now they're really alarmed by fresh legislation that's on the order paper in this House and are wondering how that happened.

In my past life I certainly wondered, as well, why various pieces of legislation that were passed by governments of the day were in some cases never proclaimed -- for example, the legislation that dealt with prohibiting automobile insurance premium rating on the basis of age, gender and marital status. That was a huge event for the Insurance Corporation of B.C., which I was working for at the time. I won't be long on this; I'm just trying to give an example. It meant that single males under 25 could no longer be charged higher amounts for their automobile insurance premiums than the general population. That was in spite of the fact that . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, that seems a bit irrelevant to the point of the reinstatement of the bill.

K. Krueger: I'll accept your direction on that, as always. I'll just turn that little set of notes completely upside down.

What I am trying to do is stick within the parameters of my discussion of why we should not reinstate Bill 26, and why

[ Page 9345 ]

Motion 50 shouldn't be allowed by this House to proceed. I don't want anyone in this House, when they vote on this important question, to be operating under the misapprehension that this was just some sort of little faux pas, some error -- that the wrong motion came out of my mouth. As I said, I was sitting here with a growing concern for the members opposite, listening to the things that they were saying and realizing that they were going to find themselves in a position of having to explain to their constituents how it was that they voted for a piece of legislation of that nature that was going to have such far-reaching ramifications.

I wanted to give those members an opportunity to . . . . I see you're pulling me back, and I'm going there right now, hon. Speaker. I wanted to give those members an opportunity -- a way out, a way of escape, if you will -- to not have to support that legislation, to not even have to vote on the legislation. I had understood, from the training that we receive as members of the official opposition, that there was this remote possibility that if you really caught the government with its pants down . . . . Actually, I'd been told that they'd pretty much not . . . .

If you object to the term "with its pants down," I withdraw it, hon. Speaker. I see you frowning.

If you really caught the government unawares, if you actually . . . . I was told it would almost have to be a situation where -- for whatever inexplicable reason -- all members of the government side had vacated the House; that you'd be talking to empty benches before you'd ever get away with something like this. I didn't really think that the chance would arise. How likely is that? Quite often I've been frustrated, and I've tried to comment on the fact that the minister will absent himself from the chamber or other government members will.

I've been reminded of the rule of the House that says that you can't deal with that. You can't actually talk about the fact that many of the chairs opposite are empty, as they are at the moment. You have to focus on the material at hand and . . . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Once again, the minister heckles me. And particularly because he used to be our Speaker, it tends to throw me off, that this man who's supposed to be accountable to the public on matters of labour legislation -- this Minister of Labour and also the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- would be so rude and crass and would heckle and preen and carry on the way he does, with his rude little comments . . . . Part of the context of all of this for me has been shock that this minister would consider Bill 26 a higher priority than his responsibilities as Aboriginal Affairs minister.

He's got this huge issue of Delgamuukw looming over the whole province, and he's got a responsibility to deal with that.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw your attention to the light.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I am designated speaker for the official opposition on this motion.

It's interesting, after having just expressed my concerns, which are significant and ongoing, as to the way the minister deals with the opposition and heckles and twitches and makes faces and generally harasses us as we try to speak for our constituents, that the member for Skeena is also noted for that. It happened just now; it happens all the time. But I am concerned for him. That, again, was part of my whole context in moving this motion: that these poor people over there don't realize what they're doing. They don't realize the tremendous consequences that are likely to flow or the accountability that's going to be demanded of them.

When that member for Skeena . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please. I recognize the Minister of Women's Equality.

Hon. S. Hammell: Point of order. The member is speaking on the merits of the bill, not on the orders of today.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the same point of order, I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to two things, if I may. First of all is the fact that the government Whip came back through the House and handed copies of the Speaker's ruling to each member sitting in the House, asking them to periodically raise that as a point of order on relevancy. Hon. Speaker, in the light of . . . . Let me just read standing order 9 for the members of this House. This is a provision discussed in Mr. MacMinn's book for our House, and I quote from the third edition, page 14, where it refers to Erskine May, United Kingdom, regarding points of order and a quorum in the House:

"Although it is the duty of the Speaker to interfere in the first instance for the preservation of order when, in his [or her] judgment, the occasion demands [the] interference, it is also the right of any member who conceives that a breach of order has been committed, if the Speaker refrains from interfering -- either because [the Speaker] does not consider it necessary to do so, or because [the Speaker] does not perceive that a breach of order has been committed -- to rise in his place, interrupting any member who may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the matter, provided he does so the moment the alleged breach of order occurs.

When a member speaks to order, he must simply direct attention to the point complained of and submit it to the decision of the Speaker. When the attention of the Speaker is thus called to a supposed breach of order, [the Speaker] at once gives [a] decision and if, in [her] opinion, the member whose words or conduct are complained of is disorderly, calls upon him to conform to the rules of the House."

More importantly, hon. Speaker, it goes on to say this -- and I draw this particularly to the attention of the Minister of Labour, who has risen a number of times today on a point of order:

"On July 1, 1952, the Deputy Speaker deprecated a growing practice of interruptions of debate by members who, 'when the hon. member who is speaking refuses to give way, think that the only way that they can get their word in is by raising a point of order.' [The Speaker] stated that in his opinion such interruptions constituted fraudulent points of order and should be stopped."

[3:45]

Hon. Speaker, I think you've given very wise guidance to members of this House today, particularly to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I think he is doing his absolute best to keep within those . . . . I think it is up to the Speaker to deal with these members. You've made your ruling, the member is trying to comply with it, and the continuous, repetitious points of order by the members opposite, calling the Speaker's attention to something that the Speaker has already ruled on and knows well, is in violation of standing order 9. I think it would be best for all members of the House if we let the Speaker do her job and let the member do his job, under her guidance.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I appreciate the point . . . . Oh, I recognize the member for Skeena.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, I don't think the particular ruling that the member referred to was intended to allow

[ Page 9346 ]

someone to be called to order four, five, six, perhaps even ten, times, and then the number of points of order constitutes some kind of interference in that member's right, and he can be as irrelevant as he wants to be. It seems to me that the ruling was quite clear and that if members rise on a point of order, they are rising because the debate is not applicable to the business or the procedural motion. I think that's the point that the previous speaker overlooks.

M. de Jong: Look, in this House we all have our roles. The government members have their roles, the opposition members have their roles, and the Speaker has her role. If the Labour minister is upset and angry because the government's agenda has come off the rails, then that's his problem. But he shouldn't be -- nor should the member for Skeena or the Minister of Women's Equality -- standing up in the House and purporting to tell the Speaker her business. We've had the ruling. We understand the ruling; the member for Kamloops-North Thompson understands the ruling.

Quite frankly, when I examined what past Speakers have said, it is bordering on the contemptuous for members to be constantly standing up and interrupting speakers in this assembly, repeating points that have been made a number of times and upon which the Speaker has made a ruling. As I say, it's time for these members to realize that the Speaker runs this House, not them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members will come to order. I'd just remind everyone that this is a difficult moment in our history. I think we want to conduct ourselves as best we can and with due consideration for all aspects -- in particular, that the motion requires very limited scope. So I recommend that to the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who I know heard the words.

K. Krueger: Yes, I have, hon. Speaker, and I'll continue with my brief remarks. Forgive me if I kind of lose my place from time to time, with these frequent interruptions and broadsides from the cabinet ministers opposite who seek to make these points of order. Even the member for Skeena, with his point of order, clearly demonstrates to me that . . . . The thing I saw shaping up led me to this mind-set, where I thought I'd better try and do whatever I could to give those members a second chance at dealing with this whole situation. That phenomenon is still alive and well in this House.

The member for Skeena has yet to grasp that I was attempting to do him a favour -- to give him an opportunity to pull back from the brink. He and his colleagues were diving headlong over this precipice without the benefit of a hang glider or a parachute, laying themselves open to horrendous criticism from their constituents, certainly come election time -- that they'd failed to understand what was before them.

I thought: how can I help them? How can I deal with this situation? The government members were actually standing up and speaking and demonstrating to us that they didn't know what they were talking about. They're in this very awkward position of endorsing something that they clearly haven't read, even though it should have been in their in-baskets since February, as it was in mine. As I cast about for an opportunity to deal with that, I had that unfortunate stop-and-go experience in trying to speak to second reading.

Suddenly this wonderful opportunity presented itself, when the minister's spouse was in the House and acting as House Leader. She called Bill 26 for second reading debate and said: "I hope I'm right." I knew she was right, and I sincerely hope she doesn't think that I misled her. She had been a little confused about what to call, since the minister wasn't in the House -- unaccountably -- half an hour after the time when this bill was scheduled for debate. He wasn't there and she was. So she stood up, and she was plainly reluctant to even stand up.

But somebody had to stand up, since he wasn't here, and there was no Government House Leader at the time, apparently. So the minister stood up and called second reading of Bill 26, and then said: "I hope I'm right." She was right, so I stood up, and I intended to attempt again to conclude my remarks on second reading of Bill 26. I was just barely into it, and I looked across and realized that there was hardly anybody there. There were only two government members present -- the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and the Minister of Agriculture -- and neither of them seemed to be paying any attention.

To me, that was a shocking thing.

A lot of what had been going on thus far in the debate around Bill 26 was shocking. We know that it's a tremendously important thing that we're working on here in the House. The government has made it very clear that it considers this a huge priority. Indeed, it's arguably the centrepiece of the whole legislative agenda for this session. So I've been kind of confounded and flummoxed by the fact that the government members opposite seemed so ill-advised on exactly what they were dealing with. There before me I saw empty benches and two cabinet ministers who weren't paying any attention at all.

That, as I said, was an opportunity I'd literally been praying for. I didn't think it would get any better than that -- that I would ever actually find the House completely vacant of government MLAs.

In trying to deal with this question of whether or not this was a technical error or a deliberate act on my part, I submit all of that to you as background for the situation I found myself in. I thought that here was a chance where those government members can get this whole thing set aside if they're being coerced to think or act as yes-people and just supporting something they don't understand or don't know anything about, or indeed probably don't even agree with, especially if they've had any kind of input from their constituents as to the ramifications which they have to expect as a result.

If those government members were indeed in an unfortunate position, which they seemed to me to be in at the time, then lo and behold, here was an opportunity to get them off the hook, to shut this thing down, to kill this bill. That's what I thought I had the capacity to do at that moment -- to knock the thing down so that they'd have until the next legislative session to actually think about this whole issue of sectoral bargaining and how it's going to affect British Columbia and their constituents.

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

K. Krueger: Okay, okay. I understand, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: It's a very narrow focus -- reinstatement of the bill, good idea, bad idea. That's the focus.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a very bad idea to reinstate the bill. Indeed, if this motion were to be allowed by this House, it would undo all the good that I was trying to do for the government members opposite. It's as if you pull the drowning sailors from the sea, and then, at the last moment, they unaccountably spring back into the sea. It's going to be a sea of accountability for those hon. members.

[ Page 9347 ]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The member for Skeena is going to have to give an account of himself back home. I notice that other government members aren't heckling me in the same way he is, and I believe that perhaps some of them actually see the tremendous advantage they've been given -- a second chance. Perhaps they'd consider absenting themselves from the chamber when we vote on Motion 50, if they would like the opportunity to confer with their constituents, and if they agree that this is a redemption for them -- a chance to not do the wrong thing, if not to do the right thing.

It can't be comfortable for those NDP members of the government who sit opposite every day, knowing that they represent an arrogant government, a government that has publicly said it can do anything it wants, a government that was elected under circumstances -- presenting itself as having delivered balanced budgets that weren't and . . . .

The Speaker: Relevancy, member. Relevancy, please.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It does seem relevant to me, but if you say it's not, then I'll move on.

Last Thursday, and indeed on Wednesday, the day before, when we were dealing with second reading, there was no apparent passion on the part of government members. It was almost a matter, it seemed to me, of putting in time. There had been no apparent thought given to the bill itself or to its consequences. It seemed to me that the members' spirits were dulled, that they hadn't been given the opportunity to really research the matter or apply their minds or even begin to understand why, on this side of the House, there is such tremendous concern over this particular bill.

It seemed to me that they needed a chance -- if indeed they were being bullied and coerced into supporting this thing by that so-called nineteenth member of cabinet -- to get out from under that awful burden, and that if I had a way to give them that chance, I ought to take that chance and afford them that opportunity. If this House were to pass Motion 50, then all of that good would be undone.

We have a tremendous obligation -- I know I don't have to tell you this, hon. Speaker; it seems like we've never been successful in getting it through to the previous Speaker -- to do the right thing in this House. We have a sacred duty as parliamentarians to carry forth the best interests of the people of British Columbia -- not just of the B.C. Federation of Labour and not just of Mr. Georgetti, the nineteenth member of cabinet, as the Premier referred to him.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not relevant to the debate.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, in those matters where your opinion and mine diverge as to what is relevant, I will always, obviously, submit to your judgment. If Mr. Georgetti isn't relevant to Motion 50, then I'll try not to raise his name anymore.

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

K. Krueger: As I say, listening to the debate from the other side of the House, I found myself in the position of slowly becoming aware that my colleagues over there didn't realize what they were doing -- that they didn't realize the situation that we were moving toward. Even though I knew that there were likely to be other opportunities for them to reconsider, particularly if we raised amendments in second reading -- that there might be chances for them, in preparing subsequent speeches, to actually consider the points that we were making on this side of the House -- it didn't seem to me that that was happening.

It seemed to me that if an opportunity came, as it did, to put a halt to the whole thing, to give those members a chance, in a very sober way, to think the matter over again, that it would be very negligent of a member of the official opposition not to seize that opportunity and do what he could. That's the situation I found myself in.

The member for Rossland-Trail spoke just before me. I am always reminded of our mortality when he speaks, and again, of our obligation to make use of our time wisely here in this House.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think that's a good idea: using time wisely in this House. If the hon. member can consider some fresh arguments, that would be appreciated.

[4:00]

K. Krueger: I think I'm potentially moving on toward the conclusion of my remarks.

It's still an adjustment process for me. Again, this is one of the things that sort of created my personal context last Thursday morning when these events unfolded. Things change very fast in here. In one session, a person is Speaker, and I'm looking at him in that chair and trying to regard him as an independent person, a neutral and impartial person. Then suddenly he's over on the government benches, and he's heckling me and my colleagues as we try and sincerely present the concerns that our constituents have about legislation. I find myself in a position of some cognitive dissonance there.

I build up respect for a person because he's in a respectable position, and then I suddenly find myself being heckled by him from across the House on a matter of tremendous importance to the whole province and to the economy of British Columbia. I think: if he has that effect on me, what effect does he have on those poor people around him who are subject to his opinion as to whether or not they advance within government ranks? Really, this was part of the context, for me.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate . . . . I appreciate that this is a difficult topic. It's such a narrow topic, and I appreciate the difficulties the hon. member faces, but I would recommend that he stick to the point about reinstatement. That's where I'd like you to go.

K. Krueger: I don't want to try your patience, and I'll certainly try and wrap up my comments. This matter has repeatedly been referred to as a "dropped order." It's more than that; it's a poleaxed order. It's an order that took a sniper's bullet between the eyes, and it took it for good reason, hon. Speaker. The gun was loaded by a team that knows what it's doing. The sniper had that opportunity. The government presented itself as fair game, an inviting target. The cross-hairs were there, and the trigger was pulled. It was no accident; it was no technical error. I'm here to vouch for that on the record.

I trust that you believe me. I trust you've looked at the record from the previous day, and you see very clearly that this was not just a technical error. Because of that, we have to divorce ourselves from all those precedents of the past, when parliaments carried on with dropped orders, deemed them to be of no effect and, apparently, almost pretended that they didn't happen. This wasn't that situation at all.

[ Page 9348 ]

We have these very few tools that we can work with as the official opposition, hon. Speaker. You know that. You know how fond the previous Speaker is, now that he's a minister, of rising to his feet and challenging us on the rules and even -- of all things -- trying to lecture you on the rules. So we have few tools, and that was one. I was aware of it; I was waiting and watching and praying for an opportunity to use it -- and there it was. For the record, this was no technical error. This was a deliberate manoeuvre on a highly contentious bill of grave concern to me, my constituents and the official opposition.

I urge all members of this House to vote against Motion 50, because the effect would be very, very wrong. I thank you for your indulgence and for the time that I've had to speak.

G. Wilson: In rising to this debate, I rise to oppose Motion 50, even though I'm on the record as not necessarily sharing all of the concerns the official opposition has with Bill 26. I think it's extremely important for us as parliamentarians, as legislators, to express to the public what exactly is going on in this debate.

Parliament works in a manner that provides virtual exclusivity to government with respect to the ability to put through legislation. Virtually all of the rules are written in a way that favours the government, in order for government to accomplish the agenda and the business that they believe is in the best interests of British Columbians. It's the role of the opposition to take issue with legislation and to use whatever tools they have, whatever rules are within their ability, to be able to prevent passage of legislation that they believe is wrong.

Now, hon. Speaker, in second reading I stood in support of Bill 26. So I don't stand here in opposition to the bill, but I certainly do stand here to seek the direction of members in this Legislative Assembly to believe in, uphold and support the rules of the chamber. I know, in the ruling, that the government has the capacity or ability to reintroduce bills. But it cannot be done lightly, it cannot be done callously, and it certainly cannot be done in a manner that simply says: "Well, sure, I was caught speeding, but I'll talk the cop out of giving me a ticket." Unfortunately, that's the kind of attitude that we're seeing coming from the opposite side.

I don't want to get into the debate as to whether or not what transpired last Thursday was a short-handed goal from the Liberals, or the NDP scoring on their own net. The fact is it's a goal, and you can't call it back. You can't play the game again.

An Hon. Member: The red light went on.

G. Wilson: The red light went on. It's a goal, and whether or not the Liberals scored a short-handed goal or the NDP scored on their own net becomes an irrelevant and a rather moot point. The fact is that it is a score.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain suggests that we take a look at an instant replay, and I'd pass on that.

It's quite clear to me that within the parliamentary process, there are a number of rules that can be exercised, and they can be exercised with the greatest difficulty from the ranks of the opposition members. In anticipation of this debate, I went back and looked at some of the Hansard s with respect to comments from members opposite when they sat for their long, long tenure in opposition. They has a long, long tenure in opposition and may in fact have a long tenure again at some point. The point is that in looking at Hansard -- and I'm not going to read a whole bunch of them, hon.

Speaker, because I take seriously your comments with respect to the restriction on debate and how we have to tailor it to this motion . . . . But clearly let me say that members opposite had no hesitation in citing the rules, that members opposite had no hesitation in exercising the use of the rules and that members opposite had no shortage of indignant commentary for the government when the government flouted the rules. It seems to me that we cannot and must not allow in this legislative chamber . . . .

If we are to appear relevant at all to the public, we cannot now simply say: "Okay, so we were caught napping; we didn't know what was going on; we weren't paying attention. But you know what? It really doesn't matter because we have the majority, and as a result of holding the majority, we are simply now going to carry on with business as usual."

The member for Cariboo South is now frequently quoted as saying: "Government can do whatever it wants." Certainly the members opposite during their tenure in government are trying daily to prove that that's true. If that is true, then government can do what it wants. Also, it would appear that it can make a mistake. It can essentially blow it, and that is precisely what happened in this debate. The members opposite had a rule they could use.

When the member for Kamloops-North Thompson stood up and moved adjournment of the House -- he did not move adjournment of debate -- all the members opposite had to do was call a division vote that would have brought back their majority to vote down the motion, and we wouldn't be here today. That's all they had to do: call a division. That's why we have a division vote. That's what the rules are for. They didn't call a division, because, my guess is, they weren't really paying attention to the debate.

Hon. Speaker, that speaks volumes about what is really wrong in this chamber. What is happening is that we are getting to the point . . . .

An Hon. Member: Where were you?

G. Wilson: The member asks where I was. I was watching the television in my office with incredulity when I heard adjournment, and I came into the House immediately to see whether or not the members opposite were going to call a division. Interestingly enough, the Minister of Human Resources asked where I was. I was actually having a caucus meeting because I have one member . . . . It was a heated one, because we don't often have a disagreement in my caucus. But when we do, it's profound, let me tell you.

For the government opposite, with all of its members, to try to suggest that another member, a member of the opposition, should have called a division is absurd. I mean, that's ridiculous. Clearly I wasn't going to do that. All they had to do was call a division, and they failed to do it. They failed to do it because they were not paying attention to the debate. The reason they weren't paying attention to the debate is because it has become almost pro forma in this chamber that when the government introduces a bill, it will push its bill through with its majority.

No matter what debate occurs on this side of the House, it is virtually irrelevant to the debate, unless government itself . . . . My guess is that unless members of its staff inform government that there are problems in the drafting or legal technicalities, they will not amend that bill.

[ Page 9349 ]

We cannot simply pass this Motion 50 without there being a great deal of discussion about the wisdom of the rules as they apply.

It seems to me, even though I am not particularly opposed to Bill 26 -- I don't hold the views that members of the Liberal Party do with respect to its consequences for the people of British Columbia; I've said in second reading debate that I frankly don't see it to be as dire a piece of legislation as official opposition members do -- I do believe that when the opposition exercises one of its very, very few opportunities to be able to suggest that we suspend further debate on this bill, put it back to whatever level of discussion we need to and have later introduction, it cannot be done lightly.

It cannot be done simply with a government motion coming in and tossing it on the floor.

One of the great tests about the rules of the Legislative Assembly, one of the ways we can start to really ask ourselves whether or not the rules apply in fairness, is for us to ask ourselves: "What would happen if the shoe was on the other foot?" What would happen if we were to change sides for one day and suggest that, in fact, it was the members opposite sitting here who had exercised that particular rule and had been successful in its application? Would they be as quick to say: "Well, let's just let the government reintroduce it"?

Would the members opposite be as quick to say: "Let's just say it was a shot on our own net. Let's play the game again. Let's have that point over"? I don't think so. I don't think they would. And certainly a cursory review of Hansard demonstrates quite evidentially that they would not. They would be there to hold the government accountable.

So in my brief remarks to this, in voting against it, I felt it important that -- not only as leader of the PDA but also as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast who has stood in second reading debate and spoken in favour of Bill 26 -- I put on the record why I am so strongly opposed to the introduction of Motion 50. If we do not adhere to the rules . . . . We are, as legislators, supposed to be paying attention to the language of debate in this chamber, and we are supposed to adhere to that language. If we do not that, hon.

Speaker, then it seems to me that what we're doing is saying: "By fiat, this government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, and there is nothing that this opposition can do."

If those are the facts, then it makes our job in this chamber irrelevant. Hon. Speaker, I don't ever want to see a day when the Legislature of British Columbia is rendered irrelevant because of a high-handed attitude of government that believes it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, without any effective means for the opposition to challenge it. So on those grounds, I would hope that all members would recognize that in this case, Motion 50 should not pass.

M. de Jong: A number of issues arise in a debate like this. Some of them have been touched on by previous speakers; some of them have yet to be discussed. A couple of the themes that I think are relevant as we embark upon this discussion of this House giving government approval and authority to do something that it would otherwise not be able to do . . . . Let me begin by emphasizing this point. The government, by its inattentiveness and by its unwillingness or inability to follow the procedures prescribed for this House, has lost the authority to do what it now wants to do.

By virtue of having done that, the onus now lies with the government to justify the passage of this motion. That's interesting from this point of view. I haven't seen a rush to the microphone by members of the government side to provide members of this assembly with an argument in favour of the passage of this procedural motion.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry -- the Minister of Environment apparently has a salient point relevant to this debate. If that is the case, she should get up and make it. Thus far, there has been a dearth of arguments, submissions and debate from the government side which would say to members on this side of the House: "Convince us that this is something worthy of support."

[4:15]

P. Calendino: Of course it is.

M. de Jong: Well, the member for Burnaby North says that he is convinced in his own mind, hon. Speaker, that procedurally this is something that needs to go forward, that this is something worthy of the support of the members of the House and that the government can't do it on its own. He is saying: "Support it." What I'm asking, and what I think we as legislators in this assembly are entitled to ask, is for him to articulate on what grounds this extraordinary motion is worthy of that support. It hasn't happened in the time I've been here; it hasn't happened in the time he's been here.

I don't think that it's asking too much of the member for Burnaby North to stand up and provide us with some argument in favour of the motion that's presently in the House. But they don't want to do that. Excuse me for providing some thoughts, some submissions to the debate today about why the motion is not worthy of support, why the motion should be defeated, and why Bill 26, which is only peripherally relevant to this debate today, should be cast overboard and dropped -- at least insofar as this present legislative session is concerned.

We've heard other speakers in this debate repeat that oft-heard line from the Minister of Forests that government can do anything. Others have made reference to that. It is in a debate such as this that, really, we have an opportunity to examine the truthfulness of that statement or that impression of government that the Minister of Forests apparently has. Can government, can the executive council in this assembly, really do anything it wants?

The second part of that statement, I would submit, is: are we relevant? Are we as 75 legislative members relevant insofar as carrying out the business of the province? To the people watching this debate in the gallery here today or at home or, heaven forbid, those actually reading Hansard , is what we discuss, what we debate in this House relevant at all to how the business of the province unfolds -- recognizing that, after all, it is their tax dollars that feed this place, that feed the policies that the government of the day intends to bring forward? So it is through a debate such as the one we are having today that we can find the answers to those questions.

When we arrived here, we all got something called Standing Orders , a little green binder -- not big, not too many pages. It sets out the rules by which this House must conduct itself and by which members must conduct themselves. It provides for some order in what would otherwise be an incredibly disorderly assembly. Sometimes it's disorderly in any event. But when we are in doubt, when difficulties occur, we return to this book.

What many members -- myself included -- are sometimes shocked to discover is that behind this book are this book and about 200 like it: histories, parliamentary histories, precedents that guide members of the assembly and, more particularly, the Speaker in rendering the decisions that he or she has to make when procedural debates, procedural wrangles of the sort we are discussing today, occur.

[ Page 9350 ]

I think it's novel and useful and -- believe it or not -- exciting that, for a change, we have the opportunity to consult some of those historical precedents to seek guidance in determining whether or not the government of the day should be allowed to proceed down a path that other members of this House on the opposition side think should be closed to them and to see what the authorities say about the path and procedure that the government has followed.

Before I turn my attention to the circumstances by which we find ourselves in this particularly novel circumstance, I guess I should begin by saying that when this incident took place last Thursday, it was first of all essential to ascertain where we were in terms of the status of this bill. That was far and away the single most important question -- to which no one had the answer.

During the course of debate on a bill -- in this case, Bill 26 -- an attentive member of the assembly, who has purposely set out to act upon his party's stated objective to kill a piece of legislation, takes advantage of a moment and moves a motion -- because that's all this was: another motion; it happened to be an adjournment motion. What happens when that motion passes? Because members of the government aren't paying attention, it actually passes. There's no division. No one stands up and says: "Hold on. We are the government.

We command a majority in this House, and when in doubt we always have the option of calling a division." No single member of the government side does that -- and the motion passes. What's the status of that bill? That is the essence of the issue that we initially had to deal with, because the resolution of that question gives rise to the debate that we are having today.

After much toing and froing, we discover that we have what's called a dropped motion. They might have called it a dropped ball, and in football parlance that's called a fumble. The government has fumbled the ball. They've come to the line. They're supposed to have the play, they call the signals and they drop the ball -- plain and simple. So what happens? You know, hon.

Speaker -- and this is something that I think might be lost on people watching this debate, because thus far, as I mentioned earlier, no member of the government other than the Government House Leader, who was obliged to say a few words, wants to speak . . . . But there's real embarrassment on the government side. There's real embarrassment at having come to the line of scrimmage and just plain, flat dropped the ball. Their unwillingness to engage in a debate -- upon which hinges the fundamental question about what government can and can't do -- I think is testament to the extent of that embarrassment.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: There he is -- the member for Burnaby North, again ready to chime in with no end of witticisms and comments. Get up, I say to the hon. member. Get up and tell us . . . convince us as only he can, with the persuasive advocacy that he's famous for in this House, which his constituents look to him for on a day-in, day-out basis -- that effective advocacy that he could bring to this debate, if only he would dare.

But I digress from the issue that I want to alert the Speaker and the House to, and that is: as we were trying to deal with that essential question of the status of Bill 26 itself, the first authority we came to that assisted our side of the House -- and possibly assisted the government side of the House and also, I think, the Chair -- was dated from 1952 in the House of Commons in London. It helped us to determine that what we are dealing with here is a "dropped motion." The interesting thing about that is we were consulting with that authority, Mr. Attlee.

Clement Attlee was the opposition leader at the time, who was engaged in the debate around the iron and steel bill of 1952, a particularly contentious piece of legislation in England that the Labour opposition of the day didn't want to see proceed -- and had been cast into the abyss by a similar motion.

Before, though, I get to the questions that the Speaker was interested in resolving as part of that debate -- which parallel almost precisely what we're dealing with here today . . . . I was drawn to the fact that as we were discussing the date, 1952, it occurred to me that the Prime Minister whose government was sponsoring that contentious iron and steel bill would have been none other than Winston Churchill. During the course of this debate, I think there will be many points made on this side of the House which members opposite disagree with. But surely we agree on one thing, and that is that one has difficulty finding a more eminent parliamentarian than the great Mr. Churchill.

His only comment during the course of the debate . . . . I feel compelled to relate this to members of the House who may not have had an opportunity to consult the 1952 Hansard from the British House of Commons. In responding to Mr. Attlee, who was articulating the opposition's view as to why this was such a contentious piece of legislation and why it should die, Mr. Churchill stood in the House and indicated that he "was referring to the fact that in resistance to this great 'reactionary Measure,' only four Socialist Members were in the House of Commons" at the time -- the night before.

Isn't that interesting, hon. Speaker? One of the original authorities that we are consulting in trying to see our way through this procedural impasse which the government has unfortunately placed us in by their inattention to the details and the rules of this House . . . . Mr. Churchill himself -- who was on the hook in this case for having fumbled the ball -- made mention of the circumstance and who his opponents were during the course of that debate.

So we can get to the issues that were considered around that question. Some of those relate to how essential the legislation itself was and how contentious the legislation was, and I think those are relevant considerations for the purpose of determining the timing of the reintroduction of the bill -- in this case, Bill 26. I think that's very important.

I think it's also worth noting that some of the other authorities that the Speaker will be relying upon in ruling on this -- and I talked about Sir Winston Churchill . . . . Of course, you have to go back to his father Lord Randolph Churchill -- in 1884, I believe -- for advice on the conduct of this debate that we are now engaged in. The Minister of Labour sees some humour in that. I don't know if Lord Randolph was in the final days of the illness that ultimately claimed his life when he made his comments about the appropriateness of particular measures.

But they are, oddly enough, all relevant to the debate that we are having today, because this is a novel debate. This is an issue that hasn't come along in the life of this parliament or apparently in the life of our Parliament in Ottawa, by virtue of the fact that the authorities we need to look to all come from Westminster in London.

[4:30]

One of the questions I think we have to ask ourselves -- and we ask it somewhat rhetorically, because to this point we've heard nothing from government members . . . . I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast posed the ques-

[ Page 9351 ]

tion: what would great parliamentarians of the past have to say about