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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 15

(Part 2)

[ Page 9713 ]

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

The Speaker: A motion has been put, and I recognize, entering the debate, the member for Shuswap.

[6:00]

G. Abbott: I rise with considerable regret to speak to and oppose the motion to recess. I think that . . . .

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Perhaps I should give a moment for the members who have other business to find a place to do it.

As I said, I do rise with some regret to speak to and oppose this motion to recess the House. I want to underline the seriousness and sincerity with which I speak to this. I think the events of recent days and . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sure the members can find another spot to sort out the business that they need to sort out.

G. Abbott: . . . recent sessions demand some comment. I want to take this opportunity to say some things which I think need to be said about the conduct of this House, and this debate is one of the few opportunities which we have to express some views around these questions.

It certainly has been an honour for me over the past two years to serve the constituents of Shuswap in this chamber. It is an honour which has been bestowed on relatively few people.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I know we had this problem last night, hon. Speaker, of some members not extending the courtesy of listening to the arguments of others. I appreciate that at times heckling has its role here, but it's a serious subject that we are talking about, and I do hope the members will give me the benefit of listening to what I have to say. Because it is such an honour to be here -- relatively few have enjoyed that honour -- I want to say some things about the way in which the chamber conducts itself. I'm increasingly disappointed . . . .

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. Another member has risen. On a point of order, Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The motion before us is to rise for a recess. That motion is debatable on the narrow perspective of the appropriateness of date and time. I would ask you to direct the member to narrow his comments to that if I could, please.

The Speaker: Thank you. I'm sure the member is aware of that and will take that into consideration in his remarks.

G. Abbott: I am entirely aware of that. If the hon. Government House Leader would take a few moments to listen to the arguments, they are headed exactly in the direction of why it would be inappropriate for us to recess until 6:35.

As I was saying, it is a great honour for us to be here, and I think that in many ways the conduct of this chamber could be improved. The efficiency and productivity of what we do in this institution could be much improved if some of the relationships which we -- reluctantly, I must say -- don't enjoy in this chamber could be improved. Again, it is a great honour for us to be here, and in order to better serve our constituents we need to give some consideration as to how we conduct ourselves in this House and in the processes, the arrangements around which we proceed.

My remarks are dedicated to exactly the point which the Government House Leader raised about the appropriateness of adjourning until 6:35.

The stakes in the debate here are not small. In many respects the reputation of this chamber and of all its members -- regardless of party, regardless of whether we are government members or opposition members -- will be affected by the debate. I have no intent in my remarks to embarrass any member of this House. What I want to do here is not only to offer some criticisms and some observations about the way in which we have been carrying on business here; I hope also to offer some useful, constructive suggestions as to how we might better improve this House. Whether it's when we recess, when we adjourn, or so on, all of these things come into play.

The important thing, based on the recent events in this House, is that it's very clear that we are all diminished as members of this House. We are all reduced in the eyes of our constituents when the business of this chamber is not conducted in an efficient, productive and businesslike manner. Recently we have seen too many examples of the business of this House not being conducted in such a manner. I'd be glad to point out a number of these to the Government House Leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Clearly, we need to find ways in this chamber to more responsibly conduct the business of the people of British Columbia. As I said, it's an enormous honour for all of us to be here, and I think sometimes we lose sight of that fact -- that it is an enormous honour to be here. We tend to get caught up in the partisan fray that sometimes overtakes this chamber.

While it is part of the history of this province and of this chamber that we have frequently had colourful and indeed sometimes rather raucous debates, we have in recent days particularly, and in recent sessions, gone beyond what is appropriate and acceptable to this House -- and I suspect you would share my views, hon. Speaker -- and indeed what is acceptable to the people of British Columbia. I'm offering that up not as a criticism of any member of any particular group in this House.

I think this problem has grown, in recent days and in recent years, in a way which, as I said, diminishes us all as a consequence.

We need to regain sight of why we are here, which is to serve our constituents, to serve all of the people of British Columbia in an efficient and businesslike manner. At times, this chamber, this institution, has come close to paralysis as a consequence of what some would describe as rampant partisanship. We have lost sight, because of that, of why we are here . . . .

[ Page 9714 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw you back to the sitting time and date. It's a very narrow debate and not an easy one to do, but . . . .

G. Abbott: I'd be very happy to do that . . .

The Speaker: Sitting time and date.

G. Abbott: . . . hon. Speaker. I think that our relationships in recent days and the debate in the last few hours and particularly of last evening reflect this. We have lost our ability to communicate with one another. We have lost the ability to cooperate in even basic ways. Again, that goes to the heart of when we should recess. Should we recess to 6:35? In my view, no. We have developed some problems and issues here which I think need to be resolved in the debate we're having respecting the time of a recess.

When this institution doesn't function as it should, a couple of things happen. One is that we don't serve our constituents as we should. The second is that the reputation and prestige of this House are reduced. As a consequence, we are all demeaned and reduced in public esteem.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member take his seat. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it is with the greatest of respect to the members of this House. We are debating a narrow motion here. It would be very helpful in addressing the point of conduct if the member himself would keep to the narrow debate of this motion, which is the advisability of the date and time of recess. I would urge the member, in the silliness of his debate, to do that.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. The member continues.

G. Abbott: The Government House Leader describes what I'm doing here as silly. Obviously that reflects her view of the relationships we should have in this House. It's unfortunate. I know that some comments were made last night with respect to people, which were, I think, most unfortunate. I hate to see that kind of talk continue here. We are on precisely the point which you have laid out to me: the appropriateness of recessing until 6:35. Again, I am arguing here as clearly as I can that there are very good reasons why we should not recess until 6:35.

I appreciate, hon. Speaker, that my argument may seem rather more elaborate than one might like, but I think it's important to make that argument so that all members of this House understand very clearly why this debate is occurring and why, in my view, it is not appropriate to recess until 6:35.

There are two questions I want to raise in order to answer the question of why we should not recess until 6:35. Those two questions are these: in what ways are the dysfunctional operations of this Legislature reflected . . . and how can the operation of this Legislature be improved -- not in our interests; our interests are not of particular importance -- in the interests of our constituents and of the people of British Columbia? I want to talk about a couple of instances which I think come directly to bear on the government's motion to recess and on my opposition to recessing until 6:35.

I think all members of the House would recall that back in late June the government decided to extend our sittings in this Legislature into the night.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I recognize the Government House Leader.

The Speaker: The member continues.

G. Abbott: I invite the Government House Leader to go and enjoy dinner. She can have a relaxing dinner, because I've got lots to say . . . .

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Hon. Speaker, the motion that we're debating here is with regard to recessing until 6:35. We can only debate the advisability of the time and the date to which we should be recessing our debate. The hon. member is outside the scope of the rule when he starts talking about supper or relationships, or babbles on about any other matter except the advisability of the time and date for the recess. If the member takes issue with 6:35, he should say so. But he's not saying that; he is going well beyond the scope of the rules.

[6:15]

Hon. Speaker, I would remind you that the rules are here for a purpose, and I would respectfully ask you to enforce those rules. They are not to be abused or taken past certain parameters, as the hon. member has endeavoured to do for the last ten minutes. He has crossed the line, hon. Speaker, and I can only appeal to you to ask him to remain within the very, very narrow confines here.

The Speaker: I thank the member for the intervention and would encourage all members to be conscious that constant interruptions aren't helpful either. I ask the member to understand that the rule is clear. It's at the top of page 90 of the rules, and it's very clear what is said there. That's what the member must adhere to: "pro and contra the suggested sitting time or date." It's very narrow.

G. Abbott: I understand that, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your guidance on this, and I've appreciated your guidance in other debates of this sort that we've had in the past. Again, I appreciate that the government members may be impatient to get at their dinners, and I invite them to depart the chamber to enjoy their dinners.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the member is out of order. The comments he made are clearly outside the scope of the rule. I'm sure that now, with the presence of his House Leader, his House Leader will take the time to explain to him the very narrow parameters here. There is no scope in this debate to talk about whether this member or the Government House Leader should be going for dinner. That is not within the scope of the rules, so I would ask that you bring the member to order.

[ Page 9715 ]

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: This isn't the first time this House has ever debated this motion. In fact, there are dozens and dozens of precedents, many of which happened weeks ago -- and last week. The precedents for the scope and the tenor of this type of debate of this type of motion are well set, and the member for Shuswap is well within the guidelines that have been set before. I think he should be allowed to continue, as has happened for years in this House.

The Speaker: I thank the member for the intervention, and I recognize again the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I hope that everyone is feeling satisfactory with that now. I certainly do intend to address, as I have been doing up to this point, the advisability of the House recessing until 6:35. I have been making my arguments in that direction. It has been difficult, given the interruptions, but I'll endeavour to undertake that again. The reason I think it's inadvisable for this House to recess until 6:35 is . . . .

I'm going to give you an example of why it's inappropriate. Back in late June, this government decided on its own to extend our sittings into the night. The important point, and it goes to the heart of what we're talking about, is that there was absolutely no consultation between the government and the opposition on that decision to extend the sittings into the night.

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The issue of consultation with regard to when hours are extended does not go to the matter that is within the confines of this debate. This debate is on the advisability of recessing -- the pros and cons, as the Speaker has pointed out. It has nothing to do with consultations that may or may not have taken place in the past. Again, the member goes outside the scope of what is permitted when he does what he is doing at this point.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll respond to the wisdom of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and will just remind him, as I said earlier, of the dozens and in fact hundreds of precedents for this type of motion to be debated. The particulars of the House agenda, the timetable and allotments for the completion of the business of this House are well within order for the . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the Government House Leader wants to rise and make her representations on the point of order, she is more than welcome to do so. Clearly the comments by the member for Shuswap are well within order as to the advisability of this House deciding whether or not it wishes to recess for a period of time and then sit until adjournment -- a wide-open time frame. It could last for five weeks straight, 24 hours a day. That's a very broad power that the Government House Leader asks to be given to her.

For the member for Shuswap to engage in his discussions, some sense of the parameters of that and of how much work there is still left to be done on the agenda and on the order paper, and of the way we might manage to get through that, is well within order. It's been within order every other time it has been discussed this session. It has also been in order every other time it has been discussed, certainly in the seven years I've been here. The member for Shuswap is well within the parameters of what's been done in common practice in this House for some time.

The Speaker: Seeing no further . . . . I recognize the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I will pick up where I left off: the discussion around the order of what we were doing. As I was noting, there was no consultation between the government and the opposition with respect to going to night sittings back in late June. In fact, not only was there no consultation, there was not even any notice given by the government to the opposition of the intention of the government to extend the sitting hours of this chamber. That change without notice and without consultation occurred despite the honest, open efforts of this opposition to move very efficiently and very productively through the estimates process.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Some members opposite scoff, but that is a fact. This opposition worked very diligently and in a very focused fashion to move through the estimates. At no point prior to the government arbitrarily and without notice going to night sittings was there any dissatisfaction on the government's part with the pace of the conduct of estimates or, indeed, of the bills moving through this House.

Perhaps just to refresh the government on that point, at that time -- late June -- we hadn't in fact seen many government bills, and the ones that we had seen . . . .

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The motion before this House is to recess until 6:35. There is a rule that is placed upon all of us as members of this House, and that rule confines us to a very narrow debate on that kind of motion: advisability issues that I referred to earlier on. There is a reason as to why the rule is that narrow. The reason for that is that there ought not to be an abuse of that rule. The rule is there, and the reason is that one ought not to be able to mock the rules that exist in this House. The hon. member knows that he has the capacity to talk beyond 6:35 on this matter.

If he talks beyond 6:35, then he mocks the rule. He mocks the rule that requires very narrow debate. The reason we have narrow scope on this debate is to prevent members from doing exactly what the hon. member is trying to do here, which is to extend it beyond 6:35. That ought not to be permitted. The rule I am citing does not permit that, because it has such a narrow scope.

For that reason, I am asking you again to bring the member constantly to order the moment he strays beyond the very narrow parameters of this rule. The moment he goes beyond advisability and talks about any matters that occurred in June or last night, or about relationships or any other issues, he goes beyond the scope of what he can talk about. It's important that we respect this very narrow rule. If we don't, we make a mockery of this House by engaging in a debate that can go on for days about the advisability of recessing until 6:35. That would offend the House, and it offends this member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin misses the other part of the motion, which is that the House then sit until its adjournment, which is very broad.

[ Page 9716 ]

Certainly one can speak until infinity, until the universe comes to a crashing halt, and still fall within the parameter of the time limit described by that debate.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll wait until . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. Let the member finish making his point.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member talks about the House being offended by speaking past 6:35. I didn't notice that the member was offended the tens of other times that this issue has happened -- or the times that the NDP, when they were in opposition, did exactly the same thing when the government tried to obstruct the regular business of the House, take control and use their majority to dominate the minority and drive their agenda through.

If I may advise the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, I think this is the fifth or sixth time he has been up, and it's the third or fourth time for the Government House Leader in about 26 minutes. The standing orders of our House talk about the abuse that the member himself is engaged in. Indeed, under "Conduct of Members," standing order 17, MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice makes this point -- in fact, Erskine May talks about it too. It says: "The misuse of points of order and matters of privilege . . . as deliberate interruptions has been denounced in many Commonwealth jurisdictions. Mr.

Speaker Brand declared that interruptions on points of order and fraudulent points of order are very often themselves disorderly" -- and unparliamentary in the extreme. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is engaged in exactly what he accusing the member for Shuswap of doing. In fact, there is a standing order that prohibits what the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is doing, but there is not one that prohibits what the member for Shuswap is doing, which is debating a debatable motion -- something that has gone on in this House for decades.

The member for Shuswap should be allowed the respect to continue with his comments without having six or seven or eight points of order within 25 minutes.

Hon. Speaker, I think the member from Esquimalt is out of order, is disrespectful. Quite frankly, he is disrespectful of the Speaker, because he has raised those points time after time, and the member has been allowed to continue with his comments. The member from Esquimalt continues to raise those points and in so doing is, in effect, challenging the ability of the Speaker to maintain order in this House. The member from Esquimalt should himself come to order.

The Speaker: I thank the members for their remarks and would encourage all members to consider the dignity of the House and to give consideration to the fullness of the motion that is before us. The point has been made. The motion does include the phrase "and thereafter sit until adjournment." In addition to that, certain latitude has appeared to have been allowed on this motion in the past. However, within that, I want to encourage all members who are speaking to the motion to keep their remarks tight to that motion, and others who are concerned about it should limit points of order and interventions to a reasonable number. In the last half-hour, we've had quite a few of them.

The member for Shuswap continues.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I do appreciate your wise guidance with respect to this matter. I hope I can proceed with my comments now. My chain of thought has been interrupted on a number of occasions.

There is a very important point being made around the time of recess, the time of adjournment. I hope, too, that the government members opposite can, for a time, try to understand the argument I'm making. It's not one which I hope offends them; I hope it's one which can help us advance as a chamber in dealing with the people's business.

The point I was speaking on when the last point of order was raised was the situation which confronted the opposition in late June, when we went, as I noted, without consultation and without notice, from an 8 p.m. adjournment, which we had mutually agreed on, to night sittings -- that is, extending to 10 p.m. When that occurred, I don't think any member of the opposition would have been offended by the suggestion that we should sit beyond eight, that we should sit until ten in the evening.

What offended us and what offended us again very seriously last night was, without any kind of consultation or any kind of notice and indeed without any kind of argument or rationale, going beyond what we had agreed to as our hour of adjournment to some unspecified hour of the night.

[6:30]

That is what fundamentally offends the opposition in this. It's not that we're sitting later. If the government were to make an argument, for example, that we need the extra sitting hours in order to achieve an early conclusion of the estimates debate, that at least is an argument which we can talk about. To simply show up and to defeat a motion to adjourn that we had understood was going to be accepted by all members of the House was something which offended our sense of what is proper courtesy, what is proper civility and what is, hopefully, cooperation among the different parties in this House.

It was interesting to note, in looking back at that evening in late June when we were discussing the issue of adjournment, that suddenly going to the late-night sitting prompted some comments on my part about the way in which relationships are conducted in this chamber. It was interesting that later that day and indeed the next day, not only did various people around the House say that they thought what I had said was very appropriate; indeed, some government members and one or two members of the executive council, as well, indicated that they viewed very positively the comments and suggestions which I had made.

I think that there is some disposition to try to improve our relationships in this chamber. I think that if we are to avoid situations in the future where we are debating whether to recess at 6:35 p.m. or we are debating at what hour we should appropriately adjourn . . . . We need to move beyond those kinds of debates; we need to move on to productive debates, where the business of the people can be more appropriately conducted. It seems that we have to get beyond what we are currently doing. As I said, I want to make some suggestions, hopefully, which will help us change things in this House.

I had hoped, particularly in light of the comments by some government members in response to my comments in the little House, or Committee A, in late June, that perhaps things might change -- that a different disposition with respect to these kinds of issues might come about. Regrettably, the events of last night certainly disappointed my hopes in that regard. Again, I think it's important, in light of the debate on recess and adjournment that we are having here, that we talk briefly about what happened last night.

[ Page 9717 ]

Our advice as we moved through the evening -- the advice that we received from government staff or the Government House Leader or whoever it was -- was that we would be adjourning at 10 p.m. Everything we heard through the evening pointed to 10 p.m. We had previously agreed to the 8 p.m. adjournment, but we were not making an issue of it. Appreciating that we are now in July, we were prepared to live with the 10 p.m. adjournment. However, when adjournment was moved, again in Committee A, or the little House, the government Whip responded "Nay" to the motion and called a division.

As a consequence, we were very quickly thrust -- again without consultation or notice -- into a late-night debate of obviously no fixed duration.

While I see that the green light is on, hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker with respect to this motion on our side of the House. I won't abuse that, obviously, but I have some suggestions which I really feel I must make before I take my seat again. There have been, I regret, some interruptions along the way which have slowed the progress here.

Last night we were into a very late night debate in this chamber. I can understand to some extent why the government is unhappy and why they would want to go later into the night. I know that the government doesn't like the extensive debate around Bill 26, and I guess that's . . . .

The Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm mindful of what you had to say earlier on, and I've listened to what the hon. member has been saying. I agree that perhaps the issue of lack of consultation falls within the parameters. But when we get into a debate around Bill 26 and the hon. member starts to discuss Bill 26, he starts to cross the line. So, hon. Speaker, I would ask again that you bring the member to order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I think, again, that the wisdom of your earlier ruling still stands. If the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was listening attentively, he would have noticed that the member for Shuswap didn't mention anything about the content of Bill 26 -- only the willingness and eagerness of the government to move it quickly through the Legislature. It certainly falls within the parameters of whether or not we should be sitting late, because that would be the exact reason why we would be sitting late. I think the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is doing, once again, exactly what the Speaker cautioned him against doing in her ruling of about eight minutes ago.

The Speaker: I would again remind members -- and the speaker, particularly -- that similarly, on page 90, under "General Restrictions on Adjournment Debates . . . . " I know it hasn't happened yet, but I want to let everyone know that it's here: "Matters which have already been discussed on the same day in debate" are not part of what an adjournment debate can include. I know the member is not going to do that, but I just want everyone to know that that's part of the rules that we're working with here today.

I recognize that the member is the designated speaker, and the lights will now reflect that.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Again, I appreciate your wise ruling. I had merely mentioned Bill 26, and I can assure you that I have absolutely no intention of pursuing the merits, or lack thereof, of Bill 26.

The reality with respect to Bill 26 -- and it's just an example here -- is that we have within this House very powerful differences of opinion. It's something which the opposition feels passionately about, it's something which the government feels passionately about, and as a consequence, we have had an extensive debate around it. It is probably the most contentious -- at least to date -- bill of this session. As a consequence, we have had a vigorous and prolonged debate on that. I know that the government may be unhappy about that, but on our own side, we are passionately opposed to that particular bill and are using the time-honoured opportunities to express that opposition.

No amount of browbeating and certainly no amount of threats of late-night sittings are going to dissuade the opposition from that course. We are fundamentally and passionately opposed to that particular bill, and we are going to rightfully use every tool available to us under the rules of the House to attempt to delay, block or defeat that bill. That, in reality, is what we do in this chamber when we feel passionately that something is wrong. We feel that that particular one is wrong, and it determines the course which we have conducted here. Again, the course we're conducting is entirely within the rules.

You yourself, hon. Speaker, have noted on occasion that there are three standard amendments that an opposition is entitled to make to bills. Indeed, earlier on we were conducting debate around one of those three. The debate we had around the issue of the dropped order was, I think, largely a surprise to us, but again, it is a rule, it is a fact, and it is a precedent of this House that we have been following.

I can appreciate the frustration of the government -- they don't want to be here in July, away from their families. They want to be at home with their families. They want this debate to end. But, hon. Speaker, it's not going to end. Because of our passionate views with respect to this issue, we feel that we must use every tool that we possibly can to delay, block and defeat this particular piece of legislation. We know the government wants to see it passed. We know that we want it to fail. The issue is: how do we reconcile those? Well, we're obviously not going to.

But that, I think, doesn't mean that we lose all of the civility, all of the courtesy and all of the cooperation which should exist between parties in this House. We have differences of opinion about a matter. The whole foundation of what we do here is based around differences of opinion on matters. Currently our differences of opinion revolve around Bill 26. Another time it may be Bill -- whatever. That changes over time. For hundreds of years, in parliaments just like this, members have debated with vigour, with passion and at length issues which they feel powerfully and passionately about.

Bill 26 is just another example of that.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Where do we go from there? Do we take that power, that passion and those feelings and use them to throw the House into disarray and further undermine the relationships between the government and the opposition? I hope we don't have to. Regrettably, in recent weeks and days and, I suppose, in recent sessions, that has been the case. What I've been arguing -- and I know the debate has been broken up somewhat -- is that we need to move beyond simple head-butting over moving business through the House to better ways of dealing with that, where we can acknowledge that the government has their views, feelings and passions around the passing of a piece of legislation, but that so do we.

We need to say that despite those differences, despite the fact that we want two different objects which can't be recon-

[ Page 9718 ]

ciled, we can nevertheless agree that we will cooperate in honing the processes and the debate in this House so that we are not here for the rest of the summer. I think that's the direction we are going in. It's regrettable, and I don't think it's an eventuality that any member of this House wants. I know I want to be home with my family, and I know that members on this side and the other side of the House do. We don't want to be here all summer, but that's the direction we are headed in because of the relationships we have developed.

Again, those relationships follow from the fact that we are letting our passions and feelings around the content of our debate take over the processes as well. We have lost the ability even to say that we want to get this bill done and get out of here before the end of the summer, and therefore that we want to talk to you about when the House is going to be sitting, when the adjournments are going to occur and when the recesses are going to occur.

I think that that's fundamental. I don't know if there is any other legislature in Canada or indeed in the world that is quite as dysfunctional in that sense as we are here. We have lost the ability for the government to inform the opposition that we are going to change the hours of sitting. I mean, that is so fundamental and so basic that we should be able to take it for granted -- that there will be some consultation, notice and a discussion around when we will be sitting. It seems fundamental, but we have let our feelings over the content of the debate overrule our discussions about process.

I do again want to make some suggestions as to how we might improve things. I think that if we can at least develop once again the ability to talk between government and opposition, it will be a step in the right direction. There are lots of things about the conduct, the processes and the relationships that we have in this chamber that need to be improved. Indeed, I think that at least talking about when we sit and how long we sit would be a big step in the right direction. We need to talk about some of the other problems we have with respect to the conduct of the House.

[6:45]

We had some problems last night, and I want to say again in complete seriousness and sincerity that I very much admired the way in which the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker conducted the business of the House last night. It was a difficult situation. There was a lot of passion on both sides of the House last night, and it was a potentially difficult situation for this House. I do want to commend the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker for the way in which that was conducted. I want to say, though, that it was a symptom of the dysfunctional nature of the way this House operates, but it's not the only one.

I want to make note of a few others, and then I want to turn my attention to how we might improve things.

One of the other ways in which we clearly have some problems is in having only a few days' notice of when legislative sessions begin. We're talking here about adjournments and recesses, but even more fundamental is when we sit. Indeed, were it not for the requirement of the government to produce a budget by the end of March, we would not even know that we were going to sit in March. I think we need to do better. I know that the federal House of Commons has in recent years developed agreements around sitting schedules, and I hope we can do the same here.

I don't think this is something that reflects badly on any party. It's not something that is going to diminish or enhance the opportunity of either government or opposition in this situation. It's something that very clearly will benefit our constituents and the people of British Columbia -- knowing when the legislative sessions will start and end.

If we know that basic thing -- that we will be starting, for example, on March 1 and ending on July 31, and agreed on that -- then perhaps within that length of time, we can develop more elaborate arrangements and cooperative agreements around how the time within that span will be devoted to the different debates which are required.

Again, that's not going to take away from the vigorous and passionate debates that we're going to have at times -- just as we are currently having one -- but it will allow us, hopefully, as mature human beings, to agree that while we disagree, we are going to conduct the debate within these parameters so that debate can be concluded by a certain point. I think the fixed

schedule is something that we really need to move towards so that we can avoid situations like the debate we're currently having, like the debate and difficulties we had last night and indeed, like the difficulties that have popped up on all too many occasions in the past in this House.

It's curious, I guess, that our sittings have moved closer and closer to the end of March in recent years. It's unfortunate because, with the workload we have in the House now, it means that inevitably we work well into the summer. Perhaps we need to have that honest and frank discussion between the parties about whether we can move the timing of the House up so that, as used to be done when there were more farmers in this chamber, we would sit more in the late winter months -- February, March and so on -- and less in the summer months. I think we need to have that discussion so that we can have more cooperative agreements around the use of time once we get into session.

The other area where there's real concern and frustration on this side of the House -- and perhaps on the other side of the House as well -- is that as opposition, we frequently have no idea from day to day or week to week what the government's agenda will be. I guess that's been the case almost through this entire session. Again, we may get only a few minutes' or hours' notice on which estimates are going to be up for discussion or what bills are going to be up for discussion and how late the debate will occur on those.

I think that when we don't have a clear idea of the flow of estimates and bills through this House, we reduce our ability as legislators to give that mature, sober and, I hope, intelligent reflection on the business that is before the House.

Also, hon. Speaker -- and we've noted this before -- we don't know from day to day how late we may be sitting into the night, and I think we really can, with a minimum of cooperation and discussion, develop a far more amenable way in which to deal with this.

Finally, in terms of the problems around these issues, I want to note the committee system which we have in this House. Again, I think it's something where, with some discussion, some negotiation, we can make better use of our time and our energies in this House and, hopefully, better serve our constituents in the process. With respect to the committee system, it is the fact that while we appoint 14 legislative committees near the start of every session, in recent memory, only four have actually met and conducted business. The great majority of the legislative committees have never even met.

I think the House is the poorer for that. Committees would be an opportunity for members of this House, regardless of whether they are the government side or the opposition side, to meet, to talk about issues in a different environment and to perhaps relate to one another as human beings, rather than as adversaries across the House.

[ Page 9719 ]

Last winter I had the honour of serving on the freedom-of-information review committee. That was an example of a committee that met. We had an opportunity to chat, government to opposition, in ways in which we never do in this House. I think if we strengthened the legislative committee system, we would also strengthen some of the relationships which exist across the floor of the Legislature.

Those are some of the problems that we have, some of the things which I think we really need to deal with to make this chamber, this Legislature, a more mature, more functional and more productive institution for our constituents and for the people of British Columbia. I want to just briefly offer up a few suggestions as to how we might do that.

First and most important, I think . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I hear the member for Skeena, who obviously wants to enter into this debate as well. I actually like the member for Skeena. I find his interventions almost invariably amusing, although not always terribly enlightening. I think that he might want to enter this debate and talk about some of the issues which I'm going to raise here. Perhaps it's an opportunity for both sides of this House to come to grips with some of the ways in which we can get the conduct of this House onto a higher level.

I think an annual parliamentary calendar would be a huge step in the right direction. Obviously, if we could agree that the House would sit for X months and agree on what we would be doing during those months, I think it would be an enormous benefit to this House. It certainly would be an enormous benefit to us as members. We would know, for example, that we had an opportunity to meet in our constituencies on certain dates.

It certainly would be a great boon to our families as well, who, particularly once we get into the March-through-August period, never know when we are likely to be home to enjoy the spring and summer with them, and when we are not. A fixed parliamentary calendar would be an enormous benefit in that respect. Again, I think it's something that would not in any way diminish the opportunities for or the right or ability of any party or any group in this House to serve their constituencies.

Secondly, I think if we could move towards a weekly legislative plan which outlined the government's priorities for the week -- if we knew, through consultation between the House Leaders, that the government really wanted to move on a particular bill or to complete a particular set of estimates -- it would be most valuable, not only to the government but to the opposition as well. It allows our critics to prepare themselves for those estimates and those bills, and we can therefore move through them -- as indeed we were doing earlier in this session -- in an efficient and productive manner.

Again, I don't think that a weekly legislative plan would in any way diminish the right or the ability of any group in this House, be it opposition or government, to do its job. I think it would in fact greatly enhance it, and our constituents would be far better off for it.

I think there are also some things we need to do to try to break down some of the fierce partisanism that I think has overtaken this House. One of the suggestions I want to make is a private members' day, when private members' bills have some real possibility of advancing through three readings and adoption. I think that would assist in breaking down some of the partisan rancour and division that sometimes overtake this House, as we have regrettably seen some examples of.

In making this suggestion, I am reminded of the bill that has been presented for perhaps two or three sessions in a row, by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and a member on our side of the House, on coloured chewing tobacco or something. At any rate, it's a bipartisan private member's bill. While the bill has gone nowhere, it is the kind of thing that I -- and I hope others -- would like to see more of. I would like, along with a member opposite, to move a bill that we both felt would in some way enhance the interests of our constituents.

Something like a private members' day, where bills -- bipartisan in nature or otherwise -- could move through the House, would go some distance to allowing us to relate as something other than political opponents or adversaries. I think we need to develop that.

It has not always been the case in this House that there were the fierce partisan rivalries that we have today, and I think we need to develop some mechanisms to break down some of those barriers to members of the government and members of the opposition working together to try to improve this province.

Notwithstanding some of our obvious differences of opinion, I know that my friends on the other side of the House ran for election with the view that they could enhance the interests of their constituents and that they could leave their province a better place than when they came, and we certainly ran with the same view. I would hope that through mechanisms like a private members' day, we could move to better relationships in that respect.

[7:00]

As well, this is another suggestion that I think would go some distance to improving the situation: more free votes on issues of conscience and on matters that are not central to the government's legislative program. I think that most legislatures in the world have come to grips with this issue, and I think most parties probably have. Generally, the view is that with respect to the budget and with respect to the essential business that is outlined in the government's throne speech, those are matters on which party discipline is maintained or indeed imposed.

But there are a whole range of issues around which we as legislators could express the views of our constituents or indeed express our views of conscience without the rigours of party discipline being imposed. Again, while this is not something that would change the House overnight -- and I don't think it's something that can happen overnight either -- I think it would be something that would assist in no small measure in moving us toward a better, more functional, more productive House.

I think it would probably be a much friendlier House, as well, where we viewed one another not as adversaries but as human beings with somewhat different views but nevertheless with intentions to try in our own way to make this province a better place.

Finally, in terms of my suggestions to all members of this House, but particularly to the government side, I would like to see -- as I noted earlier -- a reactivation of our legislative committee system. I think it is strikingly unfortunate that we have a system of 14 committees developed, of which only a very few ever meet. We could go a long way, I think, in improving the situation in this House and in enhancing our role and our reputation as legislators if we could reactivate the committee system.

On important health issues, education issues, Attorney General issues, constitutional issues -- whatever it happens to be . . . . If we could have those committees meet people around the province and hear their views and thoughts on the important items of legislation which the government either has on the table or is contemplating . . . . These things would in large measure enhance our ability to act as legislators.

[ Page 9720 ]

It's difficult for government members particularly to openly embrace thoughts of legislative reform. But I do know from the private conversations I have had with government members -- and I'm obviously not going to reveal those -- that they share many of the views that I have expressed. I hope that they can work in their quiet way with their government leader, with their cabinet, to see us move to some of these reforms. These are changes which we make not to enhance the role of the opposition or of government but to enhance our role as legislators and improve our performance in relation to our constituents.

The Opposition House Leader has framed some proposals of this nature to the Government House Leader. Regrettably, they seem not to have gone far, but I hope that is a reflection of the partisan rancour which tends to pervade this House rather than any kind of view with respect to the value of the proposed reforms. I do know from my discussions with members opposite that they believe, just as I do, that much can be done to improve the nature of this chamber.

To conclude here where I began, the thing that we have to bear in mind as we think about legislative reform is the enormous honour which has been conferred upon us as legislators: to sit in this chamber. Perhaps naïvely, as a newly elected member of this chamber, I had hoped that there would be opportunities for me to work with members opposite toward achieving goals in a more productive way. We've seen scarce examples of bipartisan cooperation in recent years.

Hopefully, as our relationships mature in this chamber, we can take some small steps toward legislative reform and build some momentum toward larger steps. Hopefully, in the months if not the years ahead, we will see definitive and useful reforms which will enhance the esteem of this House in the eyes of our constituents and enhance our performance and our accountability to all of our constituents as well.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to make these comments. I trust that government members opposite will give some consideration to this. I hope that you can encourage, can stimulate, some thought on the government side that perhaps we can get together and do things in a better way that will in no way diminish any advantage that anyone may have in this House but will simply improve our relationships and our performance in relation to the needs and desires of our constituents.

H. Giesbrecht: I couldn't help but listen to those words, and as they were said with all sincerity, I felt compelled to respond.

I've been in this House now for some seven years, a little bit longer than the previous speaker, and he's quite correct: we seem to get along most times quite well. So every time we have a procedural motion and the member for Shuswap gets up and makes his very constructive suggestions on how we might improve the production and the constructiveness of this House, I listen. But perhaps I'm a little bit cynical listening to the member, because to me, it's a little bit like the child who murders his parents and then tries to plead for mercy from the courts because he's an orphan.

I have to go back to the history a little bit. With all the suggestions that the Legislature is dysfunctional, one really has to start considering why that is the case. It's very nice for the opposition to levy that criticism on this side of the House because there are some things that traditionally happen, but one really has to consider, for example, that we are now debating for the third time a motion to recess for half an hour. The first time we debated it for three hours; that was to recess for half an hour and then continue with the business of the House.

Not that long afterwards, we debated a motion to recess for half an hour until 12 midnight. That was about six hours. Now here we are again, and for one hour we've been debating a motion to recess for 35 minutes, which is one of the things we've done in this House for seven years, so people can grab a quick bite to eat and get back up here and do the people's business. So one wonders a little bit whether all of this -- on the surface -- very sincere pleading about how one makes this House more productive is not somewhat self-serving.

Go through the process in terms of what time is allotted for debating a bill -- for example, second reading. If every one of the opposition members spoke on that for their allotted half-hour -- and, of course, the designated speaker gets two hours; I think it's two hours; it seems that way, anyway -- that's a total of about 165 hours that one can debate a particular bill. That would be great, and I don't deny them that. But it would be nice if the speeches changed once in a while. I've heard the same debate from the hon. member about this Legislature being dysfunctional at least five times. It's the same thing; it's the standard speech trotted out each time.

I think it's probably worthwhile, but don't be that critical unless perhaps you're looking in the mirror, because some of the fault lies with the opposition. At least the fault in terms of the delay, the length of speeches, how long we debate some of these things certainly lies with the opposition. You can't complain about the Legislature being dysfunctional while at the same time adding to the problem. So if you want a reason, hon. members, look in the mirror.

There's nothing wrong with having a good debate. There's a notion out there, among my constituents as well as others, that in the House we debate issues on the basis of their merits. We have this debate, and people are actually persuaded from time to time to change their opinions. Now, if we are going to be persuaded, then you have to use persuasive arguments for a particular issue. For example, we have to debate the bill, not debate for six hours procedural motions to recess for half an hour. That's not very persuasive. There's nothing there debating the merits of a particular bill.

If you're going to debate and you're going to say to us that you want to persuade us that you have a point, fair enough. But you debate the bill; you don't debate a motion to recess for half an hour and do it for six hours or, as we've done it now, for an hour and ten minutes.

An Hon. Member: And you're helping.

H. Giesbrecht: I'm going to make this short.

After you've exhausted all your debate, democracy means that you then have a vote. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. So, hon. Speaker, let democracy reign.

The attempt to talk about a motion to recess for 35 minutes is a kind of subversion of that. It isn't going to work, hon. members, I assure you. The general public is very well aware of what is going on. I've had calls from folks back home, and after I explain it to them, they're almost appalled at why we would do this. It costs about $11,100 every day to keep everybody here doing this, and that's an awful lot of money that could be put to better use.

I had a meeting today, for example, in terms of the fish industry. There's a problem in the decline of salmon. We could be debating that. No, we're debating a motion to recess for 35 minutes, and we will probably do it -- I mean, the next speaker got up -- for at least another hour. We could be

[ Page 9721 ]

debating some of the issues around the Pacific Rim and how they affect our forest markets. I have major difficulties up in our area simply because there are no markets and the forest industry is in a slump. No matter what we do, the Japanese and the Pacific Rim countries aren't buying.

There are some major issues. We would like to get on with debating Bill 26, but the opposition is content to make the issue that workers have to work for less and not be unionized, and that is the only way to get out there to face these challenges. It isn't going to wash, hon. members. We could just as well be here and spend the time talking about the member for Shuswap's old dog. It would have just as much effect out there. It certainly isn't what we should be doing, and I don't think it's what our constituents want us to do.

In the course of my research -- and this was some time ago, of course -- I had occasion to look at Hansard . There was an interesting comment I thought we should probably consider from time to time, and it has to do with the comment made by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I bear him no ill will; he's a fine, honourable gentleman. In one of his comments on June 29 -- and this was where he seemed to catch the government in confusion -- he moved a motion to adjourn debate rather than adjourn the House. As the members will recall, we almost got that one here yesterday, except that the Speaker had to correct you on that, so she saved the day.

There's a quote in here that I found kind of interesting. It is about the debate about pulling a fast one on the government. Granted, I'll give him that one. This is the quote: "That, as I said, was an opportunity I'd literally been praying for. I didn't think it would get any better than that." I had some difficulty with that quote, and it was something like this. Imagine all the people in the province and all the people in the world who are praying for some resolution of some issue.

There are people praying for peace; there are people praying simply for food on the table to feed their children; there are children praying for their parents or their families to have work so they can feed themselves. There are all kinds of serious prayers. The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson is praying that he can pull a fast one on the government so we can have at least 165 hours more of debate on a procedural motion.

[7:15]

I want people to try to picture God on her throne. Up comes this mass of prayers from the people down below. There are all these prayers, and guess what. There is this one from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who's literally praying for the ability to pull a fast one on the government. "It doesn't get any better than that." I really had to wonder -- and I still do today, sometimes -- as to what we do with some of the time we have here. I want to challenge the hon. members of the opposition.

If we're going to have a rational debate on good, sound issues that affect the people, then for heaven's sake, we shouldn't waste hours and hours debating a motion to recess for 35 minutes so that some people in here can have a bite to eat.

A. Sanders: I'd like to rise to speak against the motion to recess. I heard what the member for Skeena has said, loud and clear. I think it's important at this time to take a moment to really pay some respect to what he has said and to give just a little clarification to that member. It is important for that member to recognize that this is not just a motion to recess for half an hour. If it were a motion to recess for half an hour and then to sit until 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock on a

schedule that had been pre-planned by the government and opposition House leaders who, together in a consensual fashion, had come to the agreement that that would be the time and that we would then adjourn, then the member for Skeena would be absolutely, 100 percent right.

The thing that is critical to this particular motion, which the member has not mentioned, is that the motion is, yes, to recess for 35 minutes and then come back, but then to adjourn on the government's whim to adjourn. The government is giving the opposition the opportunity to adjourn at some time in the future. There is no

schedule there; there is no cooperation; there is no consensus between two groups to try to mutually work together in some kind of cooperative fashion. The member for Skeena has neglected to mention the most important part of the motion to recess, and that is that along with that comes the proviso that there is, in addition, some agreement when you come back about when you're going to end.

Quite honestly, that in itself is the thesis, the most important distillation of all of the information that the member for Skeena has quite rightly given, without the most critical engine, the heart of the argument: that is, that we need a government in this House that works with the opposition, that will provide that when we do recess, we know when we come back that there will be some kind of stated time for adjournment, not an open-ended thing where the government can take a very concerning piece of legislation and run it until three or four in the morning -- literally to the point of exhaustion of all members -- without the opportunity for the public to be properly heard.

I rise to speak against the motion to recess for that reason. I'd like to speak to the narrow scope of the debate and refer solely to the pros and cons of why the motion to recess should not occur. I'd like for us to look at the pros as to why it might be sensible for us to take some time. There's always the need for sustenance or hiatus, and for all of us to have a bit of time on our own is probably not a bad thing, but I think that when we're doing the business of the people, it has to be put in the context of whether we feel that this is in their best interests at this time.

I think that another good reason for this debate to occur is that if it does create a little pain on both sides and it recognizes the lack of modernization of this House and the lack of humanization of the rules of this House, then this is worthwhile. If people in here have to sit a little angry or a bit put out and have to think about why they're here, then I consider that to be a good thing, because that may be what is necessary for us to get reform. To get reform in this House so that we have something we can rely on in terms of a

schedule would go a long way towards making this a functional place to work and a place where the business of the people is carried out properly.

As well, I think one of the pros of discussing the motion is that we need to rekindle some kind of spirit of cooperation between opposition and government. The events of last night and tonight have resulted in what almost appears to be some kind of abusive relationship. If we are truly to function as a group of 75, I think we need to take a step back from that, look at what is going on here and look at what kinds of productive rules could be put in place to change the course that this House is taking.

There are a lot of reasons not to recess. There's the urgency of many other issues, and there is much to do in this House and there is much to do this session that cannot be done in haste. It may be done with thoroughness and necessity, but it cannot be pushed through. Some of the legislation

[ Page 9722 ]

that we've been dealing with today, which I will not mention, cannot be moved through quickly. There is much passion and disagreement behind it. There has to be the time necessary so that if someone talks about it one more time and it actually makes one more person aware of the concerns that the opposition has about the present legislation, then that in itself would be worthwhile.

The message of the argument against recess at this point has to do a lot with the labour bill and the need to put that aside now and deal with the other business of the people. There are many things that we have to do. The Legislature is the forum for the debate on those issues. The issue that we're dealing with now is so large and so contentious that I really feel that it needs to be curtailed, put away for a period of time -- perhaps until the fall. At this time, we deal with the other business of this House.

It's hard for the people of British Columbia to get their issues heard in this House. They have to wait quite a bit of time between sittings of the House. They never know when those sittings are going to be. When they go to their local MLA, the MLA can't tell them when those sittings are going to be. This is the time when their MLA has the opportunity to discuss those critical issues and do something with respect to those issues.

There are a number of urgent issues in this House that we have not had the opportunity to discuss. We have been here since March 24. At this time, we must look at what is on the legislative plate that needs to be put aside and what needs to be brought forward. Perhaps the particular discussion tonight, speaking against the motion to recess, will do something to add some light to that particular issue.

We urgently need to look at Nis g a'a. In this House, we urgently need to look at the education amendment act which will be coming to all of us in this House and certainly will be featured in our schools in September of 1998. We need to look again at the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. We haven't done the estimates for Health, and the estimates for Health alone could take two, three or four weeks. There is much to be said and to be done in the estimates of Health for the province in this session. Because of the contentious information in bills that have been before the House, this information has been neglected.

Children and Families is another area that I pay particular attention to. We haven't had a concerted effort to really have a forum for the estimates of the Children and Families ministry. I'm concerned that it hasn't been done at a time when there is much to be learned -- for example, the report that the minister brought down yesterday. These things need to be discussed in our estimates, and I look forward to the opportunity to do that.

The other piece of legislation that we haven't had the opportunity to discuss and that I feel is urgent -- and many others in the community do, because we've been discussing and spending a lot of time, necessary time, thoroughly going through the labour bill -- is the Mental Health Amendment Act. This is a bill that will bring in sweeping changes to the mental health system. It is of huge concern to many civil libertarians and is awaited with bated breath by many people from many of the health care professions and by families and friends of schizophrenics.

This year in this House the opposition has run a tight, encapsulated and thorough canvassing of the issues that have been brought forward to date in estimates. But there is much that remains, much that needs to be done. All of these need to be done with the cooperation of the 75 members of this House, and especially in the last week, there has been an absence and a paucity of cooperation in this House.

What I see when I watch -- and unfortunately, sometimes when I participate -- is an atmosphere of antagonism. There is very little harmonious activity between both sides of the House. Things are often punitive in action, very seldom based on friendship or goodwill. Things are often adversarial in nature. I think this has poisoned the functioning of the House. It has poisoned the functioning of the House on a day-to-day basis, on a week-to-week basis and certainly on a session-to-session basis. When I look at what goes on in this Legislature, there's a tremendous absence of order.

You know, the second rule of entropy is that everything proceeds toward chaos. But in fact, parliamentarianism is the opposite of entropy. It is taking situations that are constantly evolving and trying to make sense of them, to make sense of the rules, so that those rules can apply century after century to those who participate in a parliamentary democracy. What I see here is very much the second law of thermodynamics. I see us moving closer and closer, as the sessions have gone by since I've been in this House, towards absolute entropy.

I would be very keen and interested to move away from that chaos that we see in the day-to-day and session-to-session functioning and to move more towards a harmonious atmosphere ruled by the parliamentary process and fixate it into some kind of constellation where we can actually have an expectation. We have the expectation of what we're going to see in the northern sky, depending on what time of the year it is. It would be nice to have that expectation when I look at the

schedule that I have to try and maintain as the MLA for the area I live in, far from Victoria. There are many who are much farther from Victoria than I am, and I know how difficult it is for them to travel back and forth.

In the last couple of days there has been very significant disorder and significant partisan action and reaction, and to me, that is not rational. I think we need to develop from that some kind of credibility for this House. By doing that, we'll get rid of the total cynicism and contempt that seems to have resulted between the House Leaders in terms of how the House is running. There are a lot of good reasons for that. I don't think that at this time it's appropriate or necessary to go into them. I think it's important for us to work on them and to certainly move away from that.

[7:30]

One of the things that I think would do much to impede the frustration of the legislative sittings in British Columbia would be something along the line of a consultative process, not a government that is omnipresent on a day-to-day basis and that can just tell the House what's going to happen at the last moment. This isn't a fast-food outlet; this is a place that is -- and needs to be -- run based on some kind of rules that people can understand, can look on, can look forward to and can base their decisions and futures on, with respect to how they run their job and how they most effectively deal with the issues that their constituency has asked them to bring forward.

We need new rules in this House. I think this debate tonight really does signify that. We need rules that will avoid the fierce partisan nature that this House has arrived at. We need to avoid the rancour and the stonewalling that have gelled. We need to have some opportunities to work together to give a voice to all 75 MLAs in this House.

Many of the people who watch the business of the House are absolutely appalled and amazed when I tell them that only

[ Page 9723 ]

half of the MLAs actually run the House when the House is not sitting. Most of the people who have elected a member of this Legislative Assembly, in fact, think that on a weekly or perhaps daily basis we sit in committees, all of us of all ranks and stripes, and that we discuss issues of importance to them -- for example: "What did the member for Kamloops say about the issues in the education bill?" People will ask me that, knowing that that member is a teacher and a minister. They will ask me: "What did she have to say?

What does she think?" I'll say, "I don't know," because we don't have committees or groups that sit together in this House when the House is sitting and discuss the incredibly important issues that they've asked me to bring forward from their concerns.

One of the other things that I am concerned about is the lack of order and discipline, rules, fixed sittings, committees, weekly schedules. All of the suggestions that have been made over and over by the opposition and that in fact were part of the platform for the opposition in the last election are . . . . The exclusion that these lack of rules create for people out there in the communities who may actually wish to run as MLAs in their community . . . .

One of the things that concerns me the most, perhaps because I do have a family of my own, is that . . . . To me it is clear that if I look at the single parents in my riding or at the parents with young children, they are not welcome in the House that is the B.C. Legislature. They are not welcome here. Those two groups, in my riding and in society in general, form a huge portion of our society. They are actively excluded from the B.C. Legislature. Not only is that a shame, it's undemocratic. I don't think that this House has actually sat down and thought about . . . .

Because this House is run in absolute, total chaos and disorder, without any kind of schedule, we have actively said to single parents and people who have young children without large support systems that they're not welcome here. From a government that purports to stand up for women's issues, I consider that to be a very shortsighted look at the future of those people, who I think should be participating in the democratic process that is the Legislative Assembly.

In most places in Canada, provincial legislatures -- and, in fact, our federal Parliament -- do have what we call fixed sittings. Quite simply, these are where elected members have exact notice and calendars stating when they will be expected to participate in parliament in the capital city and when they will reside in the constituency. That's a huge help for single parents and for parents who have young children at home who might consider being a member of government. They can look at that fixed calendar, and they can tell their constituents or their families when they are and when they are not going to be in the place where they reside -- in their home.

In most parliaments, a calendar is comprised of a spring sitting and a fall sitting. This allows for the certainty that comes with the pre-planning that single parents and young families require before a parent must vacate a home for several months in the capital. I can speak about this personally. This year, when the House was coming in, as usual we did not have any idea when the House would sit. Within three days of the House proroguing, the MLAs in British Columbia were informed that they were required to be in Victoria. Hon. Speaker, I can't tell you how hard that is for small kids.

They don't have the time necessary to prepare for the fact that their family member is not going to be there for a period of three, four or five months. In most jobs we have the luxury of going home at night. You may have to get out of bed again and you may have to work night shifts, but you do go home. You don't live in Smithers and stay in Victoria and go home on weekends. You don't live in Vernon and stay in Victoria and go home for two days or one and a half days, depending on what flight arrangements you have.

We are actively excluding people with children and single parents from doing the job of MLA because of this huge oversight. This is absolutely wrong. This discourages women from entering politics, and we need more women in politics. They represent 51 percent of the population, and their views on health care, education, children and families and many, many other areas are absolutely critical. Yet we have a shortfall when it comes to women at the age when they have families or when it comes to single parents, and those issues are important. In B.C., with the way that we do not have a fixed schedule, we are in fact excluding them from serving the public.

The only good reason that could be given for being governed in a province where calling back the House is done at the whim of the Premier is the desire for control. That control must be so absolute in the circumstance that it gives the political advantage to the person who has the ability to call back the Legislature and give us three days' notice. This desire comes with a big price tag. It's not just a price tag for the opposition. We have all been elected to do the business of the people, and so we must. But it is a price tag for all the MLAs and their families who come to this House.

In Victoria it has not been uncommon for me to see young children wandering the halls here. They've been entertaining themselves in a child-unfriendly place. They wander around in order to make contact with an MLA parent in a job that, while the parent is in Victoria, may have no beginning or no end. There is no

schedule for that parent to tell when they are going to be done, when they are going to be home and when they are going to be finished. I see MLA parents who do have young children unable to do both jobs, and I see the considerable angst that occurs from that.

I also feel for those people that we create to be single parents. For example, in my case my husband is now a single parent, and he is the one responsible for all the needs of the family. They may ask me when I'm coming back, but because we don't have a fixed parliamentary schedule, I can't tell them. I can't tell my family when I will be back. You know, hon. Chair, that's wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's archaic. It's not done in other provinces, which have modernized and moved into a more humanistic look at how their governments should be run.

It is my belief that we must encourage the best and brightest to enter into government. This will never occur in a parliamentary system such as British Columbia's, which is good for perhaps the government and the Premier but bad for almost everyone else. It's not going to occur in a government that doesn't have fixed sittings, where we actively exclude women, single parents and parents of both sexes who have small children. Their families do not feel that they could possibly cope without that parent at home. I think my advice to this House and most specifically to this government is to put power and control aside and look in your own back yard when you go home.

When the summer is here, many people work, and there is no reason that they shouldn't. But I think that they should be working for what is best for all people -- that is, in their own constituencies, with their families at the times when families and children may go on vacation but, more importantly, when their families are out of school. If we had fixed sittings, there would be the opportunity for us to do that. If we had fixed sittings, it would empower single parents -- both men and women -- and people who have small kids to

[ Page 9724 ]

consider the job of politics and to consider the essence that it has. For me, the most important job a person can do is to serve the public, participate in the Legislature and be able to contribute in a positive, meaningful way to the way that British Columbia is governed at a time that could never be more important.

When we discuss health care or the education system, these aren't just things that I need to discuss. These are absolutely critical things, because I look at them and ask: are they going to be there for my kids when they need them? Is the education bill that's going to come in going to serve the best interests of my kids, who are in elementary school? When I read that, I don't read it for the language or for whether or not it's going to be good for one interest group or good for any interest group. I look at it because education is here to serve children.

What more power can we give to the people we elect to this chamber than to have the lens that they look through . . . . They are in this chamber at a time when these issues could never be more important. That is when they need those services. Health, Education, Children and Families and Social Services make up 75 percent of our entire budget that we debate here. We need women in this chamber. We need young women in this chamber. We need women in this chamber who have families; we need people in the chamber who have young families.

We are actively excluding those people by having no fixed sittings. If fixed sittings did occur, then we would pick up an entire part of the population that also includes single parents, and we would say: "The British Columbia Legislature welcomes you. You are welcome to come here. You are welcome to run for MLA in the area where you live, even though it's not Victoria, not convenient. You are welcome to come here, because you can pre-plan. Guess what. We're going to tell you when you start, when you finish and what you're going to do while you're here. Maybe you could even bring your family over. Maybe you could even maintain some semblance of normalcy for that family. You have a

schedule in front of you, and that

schedule tells you when you'll be home. It might be 10 o'clock; it might be 12 midnight. You might have to get a babysitter the same way that you have to do living in Williams Lake. But you will have the option of order and the lack of chaos in your life so that you can maintain some kind of normalcy for your family." It would thereby bring families into the Legislature.

[7:45]

There is a paucity of child- and spouse-friendly circumstances in the B.C. Legislature, which I think makes the decisions that are made here less relevant. They're not made within the context, the framework, of normal day-to-day life. They're made within a context and framework where the most important thing is that you get the best of the other side, that you are up on your rules and that the decorum of the House is something that you understand.

In the real world these are not normal things. The member for Skeena described it quite well -- that people would watch the proceedings of this House on TV and say: "What is going on there? What are those people doing?" "Well, it's 10 o'clock, and they're arguing about whether they're going to recess for 35 minutes." "Are they crazy? Why are they doing that?" That's when you have the opportunity to say: "They are doing that because they need order in the chamber. They need a fixed schedule; they need to know when they're coming back.

They need to know that they're not going to be delayed from discussing the important and pressing issues of government until two or three days before the budget needs to be pushed through by the Premier."

They need to know and believe that we are responsible. They need to know that their MLAs are responsible people who are doing what is best for them in their constituencies. We have been asked to come here and do that. Only when we normalize the circumstances here for ourselves, for each other, for both sides of the House and for the society in which we live so that they can participate, only then are we going to be in a circumstance where we can actually say: "We do good work in this chamber.

The work we do is representative of society, the work we do has been the result of decisions by people who are representative of society, and no one was excluded; we made the rules so that they could all be included."

M. de Jong: I'm not pleased to be participating in this debate -- probably no more pleased than members on this side of the House and, I suspect, members on that side are to be listening to the debate. But maybe something good can come of it. Maybe people that are watching or, heaven forbid, reviewing the record of this debate at some point in the future will understand a little bit better how this chamber operates, how this Legislature functions and how it can perhaps be made to function better.

One of the things that people are not often aware of is the extent to which members are assisted upon their arrival here with regulations, guidelines, rules and orders that govern the operation of this place. They are rules and regulations that have evolved and arisen over truly centuries of parliamentary history dating back to the early days in England, in Westminster, the Mother of all Parliaments. Those rules are embodied in a series of documents. One of the documents is what we here in British Columbia term our Standing Orders .

They are contained in a little green binder that we find when we arrive here for the first time, on the desks that we stand at and sit at when we are not on our feet engaged in debate.

For those who are new here or who wish to understand how this place functions, they need really look no further than the green binder and the standing orders that it contains. It's interesting that you don't have to look far to determine when this place sits and what the business hours are. You need look no further than standing order 2, and I'm going to read it. It says, under "Daily sittings":

"The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

Monday:

2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Tuesday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Wednesday:

2 p.m. to 6 p.m. as hereinafter provided

Thursday

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Friday:

10 a.m. to 1 p.m."

It then goes on to enunciate the circumstances under which the House can meet on Wednesday. I'll even read that, because it points to a feature that is embodied in the standing orders. It says: "The House shall meet on Wednesday if the Government shall have so advised the House prior to the adjournment of Tuesday's afternoon sitting; otherwise, the House shall stand adjourned . . . . " In layman's terms, that means that unless the House, and the Government House Leader in

[ Page 9725 ]

particular, advises the House on Tuesday that the House will be sitting on Wednesday, it doesn't. It places that obligation, not a particularly onerous one, on the government, and particularly on the Government House Leader.

Hon. Speaker, when you review those provisions, it reminds you in a very subtle way that this is not the government's House. The simple fact that we can meet and engage in debate on Wednesday occurs not because the government wants it to happen or thinks it should happen but because the government has complied with these rules. When they don't comply with these rules, it doesn't happen, and the people's business comes to an end. The rules that I just referred to also say that the people's business will come to an end unless other arrangements are made at 6 p.m.

Now, that is not to say that there is not ample reason for this House to sit beyond 6 p.m.; I don't think anyone objects to that. But it reminds us that that is something that the government must come to the House and seek permission to do. It does that by virtue of the motion that we are now debating. At 6 o'clock it comes to this House, the House Leader stands in her place and says: "I seek approval of a motion for the House to resume sitting later today, after the end of the usual hours of business, as provided in our rules. I ask the House to approve that."

You know what, hon. Speaker? Most days the House does approve that, because there's important work to be done. But lately there's been a problem, because the government takes that approval from this House very much for granted -- particularly this government and particularly this Government House Leader. She comes to this House believing that it is her right, and this government's right, to dictate when the people's business will be done, as if this is their private sandbox and they'll determine who will play, when they'll play and what the rules of the game will be. This little book says otherwise.

It says that it is not for the government, it is not for the NDP and it is not for the Government House Leader to set those rules. When they want to vary from them, which on many occasions there is good reason for them to do, they must get the approval of these members.

Should that approval be withheld, as the opposition is doing now? That is what the opposition is doing. The people watching at home will know that we are debating a motion that the House recess until 6:35. Well, it's 8 o'clock now. The opposition has said no to the government. Why have they done that?

They've done that because this government has attached to that motion we are now debating the words "and thereafter sit until adjournment." The unspoken part of that motion is: "to sit until we say we're going to sit, to sit until we think we can ram through all of the legislation we want to ram through." And this opposition has said no. This opposition has said that is not how the people's business should be conducted. That is not what centuries of parliamentary tradition, as embodied in this book, stands for.

Yeah, we've brought the work of this House to an end, but we think that the principle involved, the principle of protecting the notion of sound legislative debate, is important enough to defend today and, if necessary, tomorrow and, if necessary, the day after tomorrow.

Let's talk about management of this House. I should say that I'm obliged to the member for Skeena, who participated in the debate and offered his views and established beyond any question the wide-ranging parameters the debate can follow. I will be a little more focused than he on the motion that is before us, but I am obliged to him for his contribution. These rules that I have referred to establish the regulations by which this House must conduct itself. I will say this in fairness: they bestow upon the Government House Leader a tremendous amount of power.

With few exceptions, they bestow upon the Government House Leader responsibility and authority for determining how, in large measure, the people's business will be conducted. To some extent, timetables, priorities, all of that rests with the Government House Leader. It is a weighty responsibility, and in many instances a responsibility that I do not envy the Government House Leader. But our participation, our need to force this debate tonight represents, I have to say, an indictment of the manner in which this Government House Leader has conducted the business of this House.

She has been a failure, an absolute failure, as the legislative officer who is charged with taking these rules and making the business of this House work.

Now I look across, and what a difference a day makes. I am looking across at significantly fewer faces than I did last night, demonstrating a significantly different disposition than last night. But I have noticed over the past number of days, if not weeks, a degree of anger and frustration on the part of government members. I have observed a sense of resignation. I have heard from government members who are frustrated at seeing their personal timetables upset, at seeing their plans for activities later in this month and next month come apart. They're talking quite openly.

They're angry, because they recognize in their hearts that the cabinet, their legislative officers, have failed them, and when they fail members of the government back bench, they also fail this House as a whole.

[8:00]

I looked in Votes and Proceedings at the list of legislation that we have remaining to us, and two things occurred to me. One, there is significant work to be done by this House, a significant number of bills.

Maybe I'll go through some of them: Assessment Amendment Act, Mental Health Amendment Act, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act -- we've got two of those -- Family Relations Amendment Act, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, Tobacco Fee Act, Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, Oil and Gas Commission Act, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, Public Education Collective Agreement Act, Environment Management Amendment Act, Income Tax Amendment Act.

It occurred to me, hon. Speaker, that leaving aside the differences that might separate the government from the opposition insofar as support or opposition to these bills might be concerned, these are detailed pieces of legislation, technical pieces of legislation, difficult pieces of legislation to understand and worthy at a minimum of considered, informed debate. The question that I ask of all members is: is that considered, informed debate something we can expect to occur at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. or 4 a.m.?

Is that the time for this chamber to be considering amendments to the Mental Health Act, a bill that members of this government and the Health minister tout as being so worthy, so necessary? Surely, if this legislation is what the government says it is, it is something that deserves to be considered and examined literally in the light of day, not at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Health minister, of all people, should be in a position to acknowledge that after engaging in the debates and the business of this House for 12 hours during the day, no member is in a position to devote the kind of attention that this

[ Page 9726 ]

legislation deserves, whether you support it or oppose it. You know, the frustration I sense and have heard from government members, the anger I have seen them direct not just at the Government House Leader but at their Whip, who is supposedly responsible for helping to administer the business of this House and has failed miserably . . . . The Government House Leader may be in denial, but here she is, and her government is at least three weeks behind

schedule with a legislative agenda pending. Well, maybe this is the Government House Leader's idea of a successful session management strategy. If it is, the logic is lost on me.

The opposition said from the outset that it intended to oppose Bill 26 with all of the mechanisms and all of the vigour available to us. There is no mystery about that; there is nothing new about that. But I think the debate today provides us with an opportunity to examine how this House can be made to function better . . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the member for Skeena doesn't think that is a worthy issue to explore. That's actually the good thing . . . .

H. Giesbrecht: Point of order. I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the House. I want it made very clear that I don't agree with him that that's not a worthwhile endeavour; we may just disagree on how we do it.

The Speaker: I'm not sure that's a point of order. Member, continue.

M. de Jong: No, hon. Speaker, if I said something and misconstrued the remarks . . . I want to make a point of withdrawing those remarks. I wasn't clear what the remarks were, so if I could hear from the member . . . .

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui, it appears the words you heard earlier are all you're going to get.

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Speaker. In fairness, if what I said offended the member and it comes to him some time later this evening, if I'm still available to withdraw the remarks, I'm happy to oblige.

So we engage in this debate, and it's not the first time this session that we've done it. It's really an opportunity. It's an opportunity for us to examine how we can make this place function better. I will put on the record that I think in the years to come when members of the NDP are occupying this side of the House, they are going to thank us for having these debates. I think they are going to thank us for having presented our ideas, as the member for Shuswap has done on a couple of occasions and other members of the opposition have done.

They are going to thank us for having presented our ideas about how legislative reform can be acted upon to make this place function better. I suspect they will quote from these debates as a means of ensuring that we act upon those proposals. I think that's appropriate, and I think that will be wise. I can only say that I look forward to the day -- truly look forward to the day -- that they will be in a position to lobby to that effect from the opposition benches.

But here we are. People watching at home will be asking themselves how the Legislature has been brought to a point where it is now dealing with this very procedural component. There is business . . . . I've mentioned some of the bills that remain for consideration. Obviously Bill 26 is a big part of the puzzle. We were debating Bill 26 earlier today; I think we should be debating Bill 26 again. What we said to the Government House Leader is that the debate around Bill 26 and the debate around these other pieces of legislation should take place in a reasoned and considered manner.

We said: "Hey, let's sit until 10 o'clock, and let's discuss these bills at a time when British Columbians might naturally -- those that are interested -- have the opportunity to watch that debate."

I ask myself, when we're having debates as we did last night at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, what is the government hiding? Why is it that the government wants these debates to take place in the wee hours of the morning? Are they ashamed of something? Are they ashamed of revealing their legislative agenda, of presenting their legislative package in a way that is available to be scrutinized by British Columbians? Are there exceptional circumstances, hon. Speaker -- through you to the Government House Leader -- that would require or justify this House to sit until 2 or 3 a.m.?

You see, the rules of this House have been amended. Opposition can't frustrate the legislative intentions of government forever. You just do the math. You count the number of opposition members. You know how many times they can speak to a bill, and that's it. It ultimately goes to a vote. Yet the government -- the Government House Leader in particular -- seems to want to conduct that debate when British Columbians are literally asleep.

I think that's wrong, because there are all sorts of things the government could do that would preclude the necessity of engaging in that debate throughout the wee hours of the morning. What is it that they are trying to hide? That is the question that British Columbians are asking.

So we say to the government -- I've said it before and will say it again; we'll say it for the benefit of the people asking themselves why this debate is taking place at this hour -- bring on Bill 26. Bring on any of the bills that are yet to be debated by this House, and we'll debate them. We'll argue about them; we'll make our submissions. We'll try to render our improvements or what we believe are improvements to the legislation, and at 10 o'clock we'll go home. We'll come back tomorrow, and we'll do it again. But that's not good enough. Apparently, it's not good enough for the Government House Leader.

I know there are members of her own caucus who are puzzled, frustrated and confused by the manner in which she has managed this legislative session. I know that for a fact, hon. Speaker. One of those members put it to me this way: "Are we at war? Is there some great crisis hanging over British Columbia society that requires us to be sitting until 2 or 3 or 4 a.m.?" They haven't got an answer from the Government House Leader; we haven't got an answer from the Government House Leader. Yet she is singularly determined, apparently, to carry on in that fashion.

It's puzzling, it's counterproductive, and it speaks to a hidden agenda that's not so hidden any longer.

It's an agenda that says: "We will ram through the legislation we want passed irrespective of the costs, irrespective of the disregard it shows for hundreds of years of parliamentary traditions and irrespective of the disregard it shows for these rules that have been specifically designed to protect the rights of all of the members of this House -- government members, opposition members and independent members of the Legislature." Those rights are very much at risk when government says: "We can do anything we want, and we're going to take this Legislature around the clock if necessary to achieve our legislative aims."

The official opposition has some advantage in this matter. There's no secret to how this works. We send some people

[ Page 9727 ]

home to get some rest; we can manage. It's not a big deal for us. But there are members of this Legislature whose caucus is somewhat smaller, some of them independent and on their own. They don't have that advantage. If they want to know what's going on in this chamber, they have to either be here or be watching.

[8:15]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I think it was the member for Skeena, but if it was the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- and I don't think it was -- I'm thrilled to hear him participate in any way, shape or form. But I think it was the member for Skeena -- I wasn't watching -- who said: "Why would they want to be here?" Well, because it's their job. They, we, independent members -- and I promised myself I wasn't going to get wound up -- were elected to come here and exercise the vigilance, particularly on the opposition side, that is part and parcel of critiquing and criticizing what the government is doing legislatively.

If that remains so much a mystery to the member for Skeena, then I think he is in the wrong line of work.

Let me end by reminding members of the government and members of the public -- particularly members of the public -- who are asking themselves how this Legislature could have descended to a point where this debate is taking place now at 8:15 p.m., that our offer to the government to debate legislation, to debate it meaningfully until 10 o'clock tonight, was an offer made genuinely and that remains available to the government. Yet they wish -- and the Government House Leader, by her refusal to act on that offer, it seems to me . . . .

They are signalling loudly and clearly: "We will not be bound by the rules of common courtesy; we will not be bound by the rules contained within the standing orders. We will do it the way we want because government can do whatever it wants." We reject that categorically.

G. Wilson: I tend to be drawn into this debate by the considerable discussion around the independent members. By the rules of this House, obviously any caucus that is smaller than four sitting members is deemed independent, even though we may represent political parties and those political parties may in fact have a broader representation provincially. I have to say at the outset . . . . I've long said, and people know, that it's not the size of the caucus that counts; it's how you use it. I've said that many times. Hon. Speaker, as we start to address rules around recess . . . .

I have to tell you that from the perspective of an "independent member," even though I like to remind people that I am the leader of a political party . . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member says it's still one member. That's true, and as I've said before, I don't often have disagreements in my caucus. But when I do, they're profound, let me tell you, and they take a long time to discuss and debate.

What I want to get to is that it's a little bit like watching a Warner Bros. cartoon. Do you remember the cartoon where you had the sheepdog and the wolf? They went to work together, and they carried their little lunchbuckets, and the sheepdog went down and protected the sheep, and the wolf went off and then tried to attack the sheep for the full day. They beat up on each other all day. At the end of the day, they walked out and said: "See ya, Ralph." "Yeah, see ya, Sam." And off they'd go, all beat up and hobbled up.

What we sometimes do in this Legislative Assembly is not unlike that kind of situation, where you get people who come in . . . . We know what the rules are, we know what the positions are, and we know that we have to in some way make our points clear. But what we're debating in this chamber are issues that are critical to British Columbians. I've heard many members of the official opposition say that they would like to have a more structured, more orderly presentation of bills in this House. And I have to second that.

I say that we simply must amend the rules of this chamber so that we have a legislative calendar, so that we know that we start on one day and we end on another day.

When I talk to members opposite, members of the government -- and I argue this point strenuously, because I've believed in it for many, many years -- they agree. They say: "Absolutely. We have to amend these rules. Let's have a legislative calendar where we come in in the spring on this date, we go out on that date; we come in in the fall on this date and go out on that date. Let's use our committees more effectively. Let's stop the inane and wasted time in this chamber. Let's have a more structured, more ordered presentation of material." It doesn't happen, for some reason.

Members opposite blame the official opposition, and the official opposition blames the government. I don't know who's right or wrong; I just know that it doesn't happen.

I know that the members of the Liberal opposition have taken a stand on Bill 26. That's their legitimate right. I don't personally think it's as bad as they say it is. That's my right to disagree, and I put that in debate. I don't think that it warrants the kind of delay that we're seeing, but the official opposition do. They have a right to use the rules, and they're doing so effectively on that debate.

But when we get to debating a recess, it gets a little silly. Quite frankly, if we are going to get through to some really critical pieces of legislation . . . . For example, I cannot wait to hear the rationale from the members opposite for legislating a collective agreement for teachers. I'm curious to know how they, the champions of free collective bargaining, are going to defend that. I'd like to get into that debate, and I'd like to get into that debate soon, because I think that it's worthy of debate.

Also, with respect to the Mental Health Act amendments, I think that there are some very, very critical issues that need to be fleshed out and addressed in that debate, because there are a lot of people in British Columbia who are nervous about what this act is going to do to their individual rights. We have to talk about that soon in this chamber, because the longer we delay, the more anxiety that's going to be out there and the greater the rumour mill that will get going, and then people will believe it to be what it actually is not, or some may believe that it is more than the bill purports to be. So these are issues that we need to address.

With respect to a tactic, the Liberal opposition has an opportunity to introduce several amendments to Bill 26. My guess is that they're going to use them; my guess is that they're going to effectively use them for delay. That's legitimate. Personally, if I were to look at the tactic, I think that the time for that to have been applied would have been under Bill 42. Bill 42 was the Supply Act (No. 2), 1998, which gave this government the authority to spend $1.691 billion. It seems to me that that would have been the time that we would have seen a far more detailed kind of discussion and delay, given the need for government, before the end, before midnight June 30 . . . .

[ Page 9728 ]

However, hon. Speaker, with respect . . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Oh, I didn't realize we were following rules of order. I listened to the debate; I thought that this was wide-ranging.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Richmond East says I know better, and that's probably true. I probably do.

Hon. Speaker, I think that it's time, if there is a rational presentation made with respect to an adjournment hour, that the two House Leaders need to get together, and they need to agree on an adjournment hour. We need to make sure that the orderly business of this chamber is done properly. I think, frankly, that we have had sufficient debate on a recess. I would suggest . . . . Under standing order 46, I move that the question now be put.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I will recognize a point of order from the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Under standing order 46 there are two distinct things that have to happen before closure can be voted upon. I'll quote from Mr. MacMinn on standing order 46, on page 95, where he says:

"Firstly, the Speaker must accept the motion on the basis that it is not an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority. There are clearly no hard and fast rules which govern the Speaker in coming to a decision, but the Speaker would consider such factors as time already occupied on the debate in question, the weight of the question . . . how many members have already spoken and whether or not it appears many more wish to speak."

Hon. Speaker, I want to clarify all of those items from the opposition's point of view. Obviously, other members of the House wish to speak. I can let the Speaker be aware, as she makes that determination, that a number of members of the opposition continue to wish to speak to this issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's a point of order, and a point of order is always in order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know the House Leader doesn't get it, but this is a point of order. It's not a debate; it's a point of order.

The opposition does wish to speak to this matter. I think there is a more important point here, when you gauge whether or not it is an abuse of this House. As Opposition House Leader, I have been, for the last week, extending a number of suggestions to the Government House Leader, to acting Government House Leaders and to members of cabinet on ways to progress with the rest of the legislative agenda, including Bill 26, in a meaningful manner . . . .

I'm going to wait until the Speaker is available, because I want her to hear this.

The Speaker: I would like to draw the member's attention to the nature of the comments he's making. I would recommend that he not stray into matters of our discussion at another point.

G. Farrell-Collins: Right.

The Speaker: This is particularly on the standing order 46 motion that has been moved.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will take your advice carefully.

It's important for the Speaker, when determining whether or not it is an abuse of the minority of the House, to determine whether or not the normal procedures in the scheduling of the agenda of this House -- because that's the subject matter of this motion -- are functioning, and whether or not the opposition is being given its due respect and ability to help in planning the debate and the way the legislation progresses through that. That's clearly not the case.

That has not been the case, and as a result, if this motion is allowed to pass, if closure is brought in on this motion as to when the House will adjourn, we might as well take the standing orders of this House -- the sitting hours and the rules around it -- and throw them out the window, because there will never be any sort of discussion about when the House will sit.

The government will have free and unfettered access to this House anytime it wants, and the opposition will have no ability for discussion, for involvement in the times and sittings of this House -- which is contrary to the practice of every single House in the British Commonwealth for the last hundreds of years.

The last point I wish to make . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

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

The last point I'd like to make is to refer the Speaker to a ruling by the Parliament, by Speaker Jack, in appendix F of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , where the Speaker made a ruling: "Although it is competent for an opposition member" -- that would be the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- "to move the closure motion, it would be premature for the Speaker to accept the motion after only five speakers." I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was the fifth speaker this evening.

The Speaker: If the Government House Leader wishes to make a point of order . . . . Then I will hear no more points of order. But I'm ready to make a ruling.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just wish to address the point of order, but if the Speaker doesn't need that information, I won't.

The Speaker: I'm happy to receive it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to clarify, under the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader, that we are debating a motion in which the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast suggested the question be put about whether

[ Page 9729 ]

to have dinner until 6:35 p.m. We are now well beyond that, at 8:30, and speakers have spent a great deal of time debating that motion. It certainly seems to me to be appropriate and in no way an abuse -- in any way possible -- to deal with the motion before us, which is to recess for supper until 6:35 p.m.

[8:30]

The Speaker: I appreciate the points made. I had said I would hear from one member from each side of the House, and I have. I appreciate the member's . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: You have an introduction to make, hon. member? We are in the middle of a procedural issue here.

M. Coell: Madam Speaker, I just wish to inform you that I wish to continue with the debate, as the House Leader has mentioned.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not appropriate. Take your seat, please.

Hon. members, with regard to the motion that has been put, I'll make a couple of comments about the arguments that have been made. First of all, in terms of the point made about arrangements between House Leaders, it is not within the purview of the Speaker to make judgments about that or to necessarily be aware of it; that is a matter that happens elsewhere.

Secondly, the motion that has been under debate is a procedural one, not a substantive one, and the hour which was named in that original motion has indeed passed. On the basis of that, given the nature of the motion under debate, I am going to allow the motion to stand and to be put to the House. So, hon. members, I'll put the question to you that the question now be put.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Boone

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

Weisgerber

G. Wilson

NAYS -- 25

Sanders

C. Clark

Farrell-Collins

Abbott

Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Nettleton

Penner

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen/

Thorpe

van Dongen

Dalton

Masi

Krueger

McKinnon

J. Wilson

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

G. Farrell-Collins: Again, I'm quoting from our own Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia . The second part of the process is the one you just did -- the vote. In fact, it refers to the procedure here in British Columbia and talks about the numbers of the vote and how they have to be judged by the Speaker. It's not a simple majority. It says, on the question we now have:

"There is still a note of caution in the United Kingdom Standing Orders relating to the closure motion which is expressed in the wording of U.K. Standing Order 36: 'If a division be held upon a question for the closure of debate . . . that question shall not be decided in the affirmative unless it appears from the numbers declared from the chair that not fewer than one hundred Members voted in the majority in support of the motion.' "

Hon. Speaker, there are . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Let the member finish his point.

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

. . . 650 members in the House of Commons in Great Britain. They require a significant majority of about 375 to 275, or something like that -- I haven't done the actual figure. Certainly the numbers that are represented today do not reflect a significant majority of the nature . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member . . . . The Government House Leader . . . . The former -- I don't know what he is . . . . The Deputy Premier . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister . . . . Member . . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm trying to make my point of order, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: And I am trying to make sure that you get to do that. I'm trying to get the government ministers to come to order and let the member finish his point of order.

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

The point I'm trying to make is that items are not put in the rules and procedures for this House without reason. They are there for the guidance of the 75 members, and that includes the Speaker. That's why I bring that issue to your attention. Closure on a motion is not a simple majority; there needs to be a significant majority. That precedent is clear.

The Speaker: In response to the points made, I have two points to make. First of all, on the point about the British Commons, it is an interesting point that has been related in the notes. It has not, however, ever been the rule in this House, in

[ Page 9730 ]

this parliament. Secondly, I draw the member's attention to the paragraph in the middle of page 95, which says: " . . . the Chair's discretion is absolute and not open to dispute." The ruling, then, is that the motion carries.

The Chair will now put the main motion, which is to recess this House for a certain specified period of time -- and the rest of those words.

[8:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Boone

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

Weisgerber

G. Wilson

NAYS -- 25

Sanders

C. Clark

Farrell-Collins

Abbott

Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Nettleton

Penner

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Thorpe

van Dongen

Dalton

Masi

Krueger

McKinnon

J. Wilson

G. Robertson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: With us this evening we have Larry Rewakowsky, president of IWA Local 1-85; Bill Elder, president of the Tahsis IWA sublocal; and, with Bill, Doug Cullen, first vice-president of the Tahsis sublocal. They're here this evening to watch and listen to the proceedings. I would ask that the members of the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I too ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: In the chamber this evening is a lovely woman, Helen Onorah. She is the sister of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: Now that the conflict-of-interest commissioner says it's okay for me to actually know him, I'd like the House to make Murray Rankin welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 26. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

On the amendment (continued).

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to have the opportunity to partake, for the first time, in the debate on Bill 26, which was started almost a month ago -- three weeks or a month ago, I guess. It's interesting that we're still here doing it at this point in time, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Yale-Lillooet tells me it was two and a half weeks ago. I know he's been counting the time far more closely than the members of the opposition have, so I'll take his word for it.

The debate that's before us tonight is the hoist motion on Bill 26. So that people understand what we're actually doing here, the hoist motion means that we're trying to stop the government from passing this bill, for the nominal time of six months. But in effect, it's a motion to try and kill the bill, to try and stop the bill from proceeding.

I know that other members of the House have spoken to this bill and to the hoist motion at great length and will do so at even greater length as time goes by. If one looks at Bill 26 carefully, one can see why the opposition is trying to delay the passage of this bill and kill this piece of legislation. All that the members here have to do is go back to their constituencies and talk to business people, small business operators and young people and get a sense of how badly B.C.'s economy is performing of late, compared to the rest of the country -- compared to the rest of North America, quite frankly. Bill 26 is going to be one more nail in the coffin of B.C.'s economy.

If you look at the situation we're in today . . . . When the NDP took power in 1991, British Columbia was the number one province in economic growth. We had an unemployment rate that was significantly lower than what it is today. We had a province where people knew that if they came to British Columbia -- they came with their money, their brains, their energy and their hearts -- they could invest that money, work hard, make a living and create jobs for other British Columbians who were already here to work.

But it's not like that anymore. If the go