1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8761 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8761

Motion Picture Act (Bill 30). Report –– 8761

Mr. Nicolson

On the amendment

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Smith

Division

Third reading

Resolution 7 1. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8762

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Johnston

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Rose

Hon. R. Fraser

Mr. MacWilliam

Hon. Mr. Brummet

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly know that both

sides of the House would like to express their very best wish to our

very good friend the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways, the

member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser), and wish him the most speedy and

early and complete recovery.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as well would wish that very respected member for Cariboo a very speedy recovery.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is an

infrequent visitor to the capital and to this precinct, but one who is

always welcome. I note that there is present this morning to observe

whatever may occur in the course of the morning's business a very much

the younger and by far the most charming member of a fairly well-known

family in British Columbia. Would the House welcome Helen Gardom.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the 1985 annual report, with 1986 assessment data, of the British Columbia Assessment Authority.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

MOTION PICTURE ACT

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill passed in this House two

stages in one day. I think this bill contains some rather dangerous

portions. While most people would agree with the action that is being

taken by the government on pornography involving children, incest,

bestiality and other things mentioned in this bill, I do find that

there are two sections which give the government almost the widest....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm going to move an amendment, Mr. Member;

please be patient. We are dealing with liberties and freedoms. We've

already had comments from the Attorney-General about what is happening

to those freedoms in the hands of the federal minister responsible, Mr.

Crosbie, who brought down his own version of what we have a right to

view and read and see.

I would like to move, then, that this motion be amended by deleting

the words following "that" and inserting the words "six months hence."

I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: The hoist motion appears to be in order, hon. member. Proceed.

MR. NICOLSON: I have an across-the-floor comment. It's been asked

if I've caucused the amendment. I have informed the caucus of my disagreement

with other members of this House who, I guess, other than that, otherwise are

quite unanimous.

I think this bill should be lifted for six months in view of the

fact that it is a very serious infringement, particularly in the

regulations and powers that are granted under this act. I think there

should be a time to stop and think about how far we have gone. There's

no question that we want to protect children. There is no question

about the objective of doing away with things that tend to degrade

women and create them simply as sex objects. But we have to look in

this six months at how we should best go about that.

I think the things that we have to do.... I think that this is a

diversion. I don't think it begins to deal, for instance, with

pedophiles who exchange their little slides and very cheap and tawdry

homemade videos, which are not going to be touched by this. Our

reviewers are not going to see the kind of thing that we're aiming at.

We are aiming at those people, but we will end up with the regulations

in here which would virtually allow the minister to ban Mary Poppins and certainly to ban the Greek mythology of Pan and the Greek play Oedipus Rex under these regulations.

I think that I cannot in all conscience allow this bill to pass

without registering my very strong opposition. I don't believe that we

will hit the real targets with this bill. I think that we might sit

back complacently, and we will have other incidents. There have

recently been charges brought against a teacher in north Vancouver

Island who used a home computer to entice children into his influence

and trust. Are we going to ban home computers? Where does this end? The

fact is that the magnets, the tools of this type of thing go far beyond

simply regulating the things that are already under public view. I

think that what we will do is put this type of thing back where it has

always been: we will put it back underground. There will be less

opportunity to have a window on what people view as being erotic,

stimulating, pornographic, or whatever.

I do know, Mr. Speaker, and I would seek a six month.... I don't

think we should proceed with this bill, in view of what is in the

federal House, and in view even of what the Attorney-General has said:

this is okay but that which is in the federal House goes too far. Mr.

Speaker, you don't go dealing with freedoms like you're in the

Save-On-Foods supermarket saying: "I’ll take this freedom and this one,

but this one I don't need."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Flip-flop.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that after the

relationship that I've had with that member he would treat this subject

a little bit more seriously, and realize that there is a down side to

what we are doing here. I have had the experience when I was a student

of being prohibited from getting a copy of Fanny Hill .

I didn't even know what the subject matter of it was, except that it

was referred to throughout all of the literature on the origins of the

I've had other experiences of being the victim of censorship, and I

do not give up these freedoms lightly. I will give up the freedom to

see acts such as are specifically spelled out in this act, but I will

not give up my freedom to see things which are not specified, things

which are left unsaid but left to cabinet to decide by regulation, to

change the definition by regulation and to add more prohibitions by

regulation. That is the failing of this act. I would urge that this act

not be read

[ Page 8762 ]

now but that it be read six months hence, because there can be no dispute about those things which are specifically spelled out.

[10:15]

Further, I think it should be hoisted because I think that this act

might even fail because of those sections. It might fail to do what we

think should be done because it is not specific, and when bills come up

against the Charter.... It wouldn't be the first time that this House

has passed legislation that has failed to hold up in the courts. We

sought to do that with heroin addicts, and it was rejected by the

courts. We sought to take away other types of things that went against

natural justice, and it gave some very short-term political gain, and

it gave the public an assurance that something was being done when in

fact it was not.

If this bill were carried and then failed because it was attacked on

those sections, it would not only defeat the purpose of this bill,

which is to protect children and women and men, but it would also tend

to demean the respect in which we hold the Charter, because if it was

defeated on the basis of the Charter, we would then lose our patience

with the Charter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience, and I'm not going to

stretch the rules of the House any longer. I must express the regret I

was not here for second reading, and that is on my head, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: What we are seeing is an expression of opinion

with respect to freedoms and the right of the individual to seek the

course of action he chooses. One of the most glorious and upstanding

aspects of the New Democratic Party is, always has been, and always

will be to respect the right of the individual to differ and to express

his differing opinions. We have great admiration for the member from

Nelson-Creston in taking advantage of that opportunity and expressing

his views to this House. We wish that same prescription would prevail

on the government side of the House, where free expression should be

permitted to have its full force of effect in this assembly.

We again express our appreciation to exhibit once more to the

general public our respect and admiration for the right to express

individual views, and to express them freely in this Legislature

without fear of any retribution and with admiration for expressing

those views.

HON. MR. SMITH: The interjections at this third reading stage

are somewhat disquieting when you look back on the history of the

progress of this legislation. It was introduced on May 21 and debated

in second reading on June 12; there was no division on second reading.

In committee stage an amendment was moved by the opposition and,

although defeated, some of the thrust of that amendment was adopted in

an amendment that the government put which incorporated one of the

concerns about freedom of speech. So not only in this chamber was there

debate and general support, because the opposition did not divide in

committee on the bill as amended, but before we came to this chamber

there were a number of public hearings on this issue around the

province. I don't remember that kind of process federally, but that's

what we did. We listened to community groups, we listened to the

women's organizations and the church groups that had views on this.

Also we listened to the retail industry and the distributors of videos.

We did in this bill what the consensus out there was. Can it be

suggested for a moment that someone's freedom is being infringed

because the bill provides that we're not going to show videos that show

sex with coercion; that we're not going to show videos that show incest

or necrophilia; that we're not going to show videos that have bondage

in a sexual context; that we're not going to show videos that have sex

with children under 14; that we're not going to show videos that have

explicit sexual scenes involving violence? Surely that has nothing to

do with freedom. That has a lot to do though with responsibility and

with setting some criteria and public standards which are the minimum

standards of decency in this province that the public expects. They are

the same standards that the industry wishes to have.

The bill also has safeguards for film societies. It has adequate

exemptions for scientific and educational purposes. It is not a

censorship bill. It is a bill to set some standards to protect children

and to get filth off the shelf, but to have reasonable limits for

reasonable British Columbians to live with. It is not a censorship bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, are we ready for the question? The question is shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 1

Nicolson

NAYS — 45

Brummet

Waterland

McClelland

Segarty

Heinrich

Veitch

Richmond

Pelton

Fraser

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

Hewitt

Rogers

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Parks

Johnston

Reid

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Blencoe

Reynolds

Ree

Strachan

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated. On the main question now, the third reading of Bill 30.

Bill 30, Motion Picture Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call resolution number 71 standing in my

name on the order paper. I move: "That this House does not concur in

the report of the Committee of Supply with respect to vote 70 and the

proceedings therein are declared of no force and effect and orders the

said vote be referred back to the Committee of Supply to be

reconsidered."

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I draw the attention of

Mr. Speaker to page 669 of Sir Erskine May's fourteenth edition,

written of course by perhaps the greatest

[ Page 8763 ]

editor ever of Sir Erskine May, Sir Gilbert

Campion. Mr. Speaker, on that page it talks about disallowance of

changing amendments moved in the House. It says specifically: "If a

charge is reduced or eliminated by an amendment in committee, it cannot

be restored in whole or in part by an amendment on report. The proper

course in such cases is to recommit the bill or resolution." It further

says, without my reading so many of the other things.... I say that

this particular motion is out of order because of the part which would

seek to undo that which was done already in the committee.

The remedy is to vote for an amount in addition, if it is referred

back to the committee; and it is in Erskine May, believe me. The

committee has to vote an amount in addition to that already approved.

In other words, we do not disapprove by some motion in the House or

undo that which we have done in committee. We can refer back to

committee, however, since Her Majesty has requested supply of up to a

certain amount, and we would.... Therefore the remedy for the

government would be to increase, I suppose, up to the original amount

requested less $1, which means there would be two amounts that have

already been approved for this. I cite section....

There's a great deal to be read, Mr. Speaker, on amendments. There's

a further reference on page 705 to rescinding of resolutions and

amendments to resolutions on report. It is outlined there and in other

editions of Erskine May that one votes an amount in addition to that

which has already been approved.

[10:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The comments of

the hon. member are interesting, but they're specious. I draw to the

attention of the House and all members that the House only received the

report and never acted upon it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on that point the rules are very

clear that you cannot undo anything without a report and without

sending it back to the committee. You cannot undo a resolution in

committee other than by referring back to the committee. You are trying

to undo the resolution that was taken in committee. That cannot be

done. I'm just trying to provide you with the proper forms and help you

out of your own....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must advise that because

of the unusual circumstances involved, checks have been made in other

jurisdictions on this very matter, and it appears to the satisfaction

of the Chair that the procedure before us is proper and that the motion

itself.... The Chair is of the opinion that the motion is in order,

hon. member, based not only on the authorities that we're consulting,

but also on authorities at the House of Commons in Ottawa.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to our

standing order that says that in ruling — and I would hope this is a

ruling — Mr. Speaker will cite references and give his authorities,

because this is a very important decision.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it

seems to me that the practice of this House and of other Houses, but

speaking only of this chamber, is that at some later point — it may be

hours or days or weeks away — we deal with a supply bill which then

sets out the days on which the committee sat, lists all of them. That

practice has been in place for many years. And finally...

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not anticipating a motion, Mr. Member; I'm referring to past practice.

...we say that those reports be now received, taken as read and

agreed to. Surely that is a very fundamental and final step for this

House with respect to dealing with reports from Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD: In making your earlier comment, Your Honour

referred to the House of Commons in Ottawa as having some authority. I

want to draw to your attention that that is not so, and that we should

not and cannot for precedence refer to the House of Commons in Ottawa,

particularly with reference to standing order 1, which points out that

in all cases not provided for hereafter or by other orders that this

House makes, "the usages, customs and precedents, firstly, of this

House and, secondly, of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be followed.... " Particularly

apropos of that, Mr. Speaker, when the Standing Orders and Private

Bills Committee considered the standing orders a couple of years ago,

the subject matter of whether or not we should refer to the House of

Commons in Ottawa as having any precedence for us was debated and dealt

with by the committee; and the committee unanimously saw fit not to

include any reference to the House of Commons in Ottawa, because that

would be placing this Legislature in a subservient position to an equal

partner under the constitution. Therefore I think you cannot look to

the House of Commons in Ottawa for any guidance.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on that point, I must also advise

that Westminster has been contacted, and they concur with what has been

stated by the Chair.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

The House has embarked upon a matter of some considerable

importance, and the Chair will undertake to resolve the matter in the

air in which the seriousness prevails. Hon. members, the motion

declares that the proceedings relating to vote 70 in Committee of

Supply shall be "of no force and effect." Stated in other words, it is

as if the proceedings had been rendered a nullity. This means that the

motion contemplates that vote 70 will be before the Committee of Supply

as it was originally proposed. Full debate and amendments determined by

the rules of the House will be available to the members of the

committee if the motion passes.

Hon. members, the Chair feels that the motion before us.... The

opinion of the Chair is that the motion is a valid motion and will

proceed.

On the motion, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us.... I would

imagine the government will declare it to be a question of want of

confidence, even though it denied that the amendment in committee to

vote 70 was a want of confidence, but was just some kind of technical

matter. I take it that this motion before us is a want of confidence,

and we're therefore entitled to express some views about whether or not

[ Page 8764 ]

this government has the confidence of this House or of the people of the province.

The decision to reduce vote 70 to one dollar showed clearly how

utterly incompetent and ridiculous this government showed up with that

particular vote. It wasn't a question of embarrassment; it was

ludicrousness. Mr. Speaker, I put this to you: when the motion was made

in committee on June 12 last that the committee rise and report the

resolution — namely the resolution to reduce the vote to one dollar —

it was a unanimous vote. Hon. members opposite got up and supported

that motion to report a dollar vote 100 percent, unanimously agreed

with the opposition, and agreed that it was a lack of confidence in the

government, and agreed....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: One hundred percent of the members of the committee reported that they had no confidence in the government. Here's the Votes and Proceedings for that day, Mr. Speaker. I point out to you some of the names on here: Richmond....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: I'm only reading from the record; there's the name Richmond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: All right. The minister himself voted no

confidence in himself — and I can understand clearly how he could come

to that conclusion — and every member opposite did. So now the

government is saying: "We were stupid the other day to have done that."

But they did it. And now they're turning around and saying: "Let's

reverse what we did." How ridiculous! Laughable.

That vote revealed also, Mr. Speaker, the true colours of this

government, the true colours of the whole Social Credit caucus. We

remember that screeching, near-maniacal declaration of the government

House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), infuriated because he'd been trapped by

his own ineptitude and his own incompetence; a victim of his own

activities. He knew what was coming. He knew what was going to happen,

or what was likely to happen. Let me point out to Your Honour....

MR. REID: You can't trust you guys.

MR. HOWARD: We'll deal later with the pretended pugilist for Surrey, Mr. Speaker.

On the fourth day of June, just a few days before June 12, a

division took place in the House and the government had 21 members

present. For the next division on the fourth day of June they had 20

members present. For the next division on the fourth day of June the

government had 18 members present in the House, and I sat here and I

saw the government House Leader looking around at his troops, counting

silently to himself — 1, 2, 3, 4 — and he looked opposite, counted our

numbers. He knew that they only had 18 members there on the fourth day

of June. He knew that on two occasions in the past, in a vote that had

taken place just the week before, the government had fewer members than

the opposition combined, and they went blithely on their own way

ignoring it.

They permitted — encouraged, I submit — members of the government

side to be absent to go about their private business, to use public

funds in pursuit of their private objectives for the leadership race. I

submit that that's what they were doing.

Here's a government that has spent at least $50 million to $60

million of taxpayers' money over the past few years on advertising and

propagandizing on behalf of Social Credit, and they were at it again.

Do they expect this House to exhibit confidence in that tribe, in that

gang, in that crowd which is all painted with the same brush? Some

cabinet ministers — what do they earn, 70 grand a year? — are not

dealing with public business, not here paying attention to their

obligation to the public, but moving on, dealing with private affairs.

That's what's involved, Mr. Speaker, in a question of confidence in

this government. They've exhibited to me that no confidence whatever

should be reposed in them, and that this Legislature should not vote

confidence in them. They've shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

They've shown themselves to pursue private interests to the detriment

of the general public. They've shown themselves to adjust public policy

to suit their own personal and private interest, and they want us to

exhibit confidence in them?

Even the Attorney-General, appearing on Provincial Affairs

the other night.... I watched him; I don't know who else did. But did

you ever see such a shifty-eyed performance? I'm serious. Not once....

AN HON. MEMBER: You know a shifty-eyed person when you see one.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I'm looking at one right now. It was an

attempt to use the provincial public affairs forum.... Not once did the

Attorney-General look at the viewer. Why? Because he was embarrassed

about what he was saying. I could understand that kind of performance

coming from, say, a disbarred lawyer, but not from a person who holds

the highest legal office in the land in our province, the

Attorney-General. In an attempt to justify their own incompetence and

their own mismanagement and their lack of attention to the public's

business, he took off on some kind of attempt to distort what the

realities were in this House. One of the things he said was that we

voted against tourism, and he knows that not to be the case. He knew

that when he said it, and a person who knows something not to be the

case when they in fact do say it is classified by a word which I cannot

use in this chamber and would not use, but everyone knows what it is

and knows what type of person it is that does that.

[10:45]

We have a government, the whole of the government, that has been

tainted and had its group mentality poisoned over the past decade.

There's an analogy with the bad apple in the barrel, I suppose, that

might be appropriate. When the one bad apple is removed from the barrel

it is supposed to leave the remainder fit for consumption, fit for

support, fit for endorsement, fit to express confidence in; but in this

case one bad apple may go and it leaves the whole barrel of bad apples.

In no possible way should this Legislature or the people of this

province be asked to express confidence in this government.

The following day the belligerence and anger expressed in the

corridor by people who identify themselves as honourable members in

this House, the near-pugilism.... We all know that attempted or

simulated physical violence is the last

[ Page 8765 ]

refuge of the incompetent: not able to justify

their own doing, they take it out on somebody else, attempting to blame

somebody else for their own failures.

The government chief Whip, such a miserable failure, along with the

Government House Leader, in keeping the troops here, was applauded the

next day by the whole of the cabinet, the whole of the caucus,

indicating how much that group over there endorses failure. In no way

am I going to endorse failure. I can do nothing else but vote against

this particular motion and that way express no confidence whatever in

this crowd of bad apples.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask for order during....

MR. REID: You don't have the guts to say that in the hallway.

MR. SPEAKER: And I would ask the second member for Surrey for

order. The second member for Surrey will be advised for the last time.

This time is the last time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand your feelings

on this matter. I listened to the member for Surrey during this debate,

and I feel that when people are threatened on the floor of the House —

asked to come out in the hall and debate with fists or whatever else

one might imagine under these circumstances — this is not something

that should happen in a chamber such as this. We have very basic

differences in this chamber. The differences are political, and if one

side happens to disagree with another, then it strikes me that there

should be at least some respect for that position. Earlier this morning

we saw respect afforded a member of this Legislature for a position

that was somewhat different than all other members'. But that's neither

here nor there. It's a decision that should be respected.

As far as trust is concerned, I've been here about 17 years and have

seen ministers go through what the Minister of Tourism went through

last Friday: having a motion of confidence levelled at them for a

particular reason. That motion of confidence was levelled because of

the fact that the minister has not afforded this assembly nor the

committee a look at the accounts of Expo. Pure and simple. That was the

motion of confidence. We said we are not confident in you by virtue of

the fact that you haven't lived up to your own statute, haven't obeyed

the law that you wrote. If that isn't a significant motion of

confidence, I would like to know what is.

They lost that motion of confidence. The minister was embarrassed,

the government were embarrassed, and deserved to be embarrassed —

absolutely the most deserving thing that has taken place in this

assembly for an awfully long time; number one, by virtue of the fact

that there has been no respect for their own legislation, and number

two, by virtue of the fact that they couldn't even be here; they

couldn't even get to the church on time, so to speak.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, there was embarrassment. Yes, there still

will be embarrassment. We didn't pursue the member for Nelson-Creston's

points of order, because we know that when we get to the end of all

that, it's the numbers that count in this chamber, and they're all here

today.

Isn't it interesting that if this debate.... Oh, it's such a

piddling little debate. It's nothing. It means nothing. The fact is,

they're in their chairs today so it must mean one hell of a lot. If

this were an insignificant debate, if it had ever happened before in

this chamber, they would be out and around. But no, they're here. I

hope they sit through this debate and understand what incompetence

means, and understand that a government governing 2.7 million people

has an obligation to look after their affairs in this chamber first so

that they can be seen to be looking after the affairs of the people

throughout this province. Mr. Speaker, that is not the case, has not

been the case.

They run a leadership race in the middle of a legislative assembly

and say: "Let's get out of here." Yes, we'll get out of here in due

course. Stand up and own up to the fact that last Thursday you really

goofed. Don't start talking that somebody was lied to, or somebody did

this, somebody did that. The numbers speak for themselves, and those

numbers are 21 to 19. The Minister of Tourism, the most embarrassed of

all — and should be the most embarrassed of all — has not shown the

competence, the ability to exact from people who are there at his

pleasure, at order-in-council....

MR. REID: Put it to a vote and see.

MR. COCKE: We put it to a vote the other day, Mr. Speaker, and we saw!

MR. SKELLY: He wants to roll back the clock.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Speaker, we did put it to a

vote. We told you what we thought of the fact that the Minister of

Tourism has not come before this chamber with a report from Expo, and

Expo has been in existence for some four years.

Mr. Speaker, I know exactly the way the vote's going to go on this,

having been able to read the government's position I think rather well

in the papers and elsewhere. I know perfectly well how the vote is

going to end up, but I just want the government to know that the people

in the province are embarrassed on account of their government — the

government that they elected. Regardless of what happens to your

leadership contest, when it's all over, it's still going to be that

incompetent gang trying to run this province, having run it into the

ground to date and not able to take care of a vote in this House.

Why don't they own up to the fact that they don't know where they're

going? They don't know where they've come from. They have nothing to

offer, and they proved it last Thursday. They're trying to get out of

it now by bringing their troops in and saying: "Put it to a vote."

Sure, we'll put it to a vote ultimately, but hang your heads in shame.

You have been totally incompetent. Mr. Speaker, what more can one say?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, this is a very historic occasion.

Never before in the history of this British Columbia parliament has

such a motion had to be placed on the order paper. As I read the

motion, it basically states that this House does not concur with the

unanimous report of the Committee of Supply with respect to vote 70 and

that the proceedings therein are declared of no force and effect. If I

supported this motion I would be doing a disservice to the whole British

[ Page 8766 ]

parliamentary system. If any member of this House

supports a motion asking the members of this House to repudiate a vote

which took place in this Legislature legally, rightfully and

constitutionally, then we are not upholding the constitution of our

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MRS. DAILLY: That is correct.

What is the point of serving here as a member of the B.C.

Legislature if we pass a vote unanimously and then sit back and allow a

government to come in and, because of the sheer force of their numbers,

repudiate a vote that was taken properly and rightfully in this

parliament? Looking across particularly at the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith) of this province, who is charged with upholding the laws of

this province, I cannot understand how he could possibly sit in this

Legislature and ask the members to repudiate those laws — and that is

what we are being asked to do. There is no way that anyone in this

House should feel they deserve or have a right to remain as a member of

this House if they will try to abridge and repudiate the laws of this

province.

I for one frankly thought that when that vote was lost it was over

and done with. Now I find out that the government, in their desperation

to hold on to power, has nevertheless decided to force this House into

accepting a vote that was repudiated by the whole House. Is power so

important to the Social Credit government that they are ready and

willing to toss out all the rules of this Legislature and the basic

rights of the parliamentary system? I say to you that if it's so

important, if power means so much, you are indeed a dangerous

government. Any government which believes it can come in here and,

through sheer force of numbers, ram through something which has not

been proven to be right, which is unconstitutional in the opinion of

many people in this province and elsewhere in the country, is a very

dangerous government.

[11:00]

If a government can put through a motion like this, we no longer

have a democratic parliamentary system in this province. It means that

if this government at any time is not pleased with what takes place in

this chamber, it can simply bring in a motion to negate whatever took

place by sheer force of numbers. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there

is no way I or any member of this House should be standing and

supporting this very dangerous move by a government of this province

which is simply obsessed with maintaining power at any cost. I simply

want to conclude by saying what the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) said: this is a black day for the British Columbia Legislature,

and shame on you if you push this motion through.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to some

of the grim portents that have emanated from the other side of the

chamber about all of this, and particularly to go back to the

resolution, which is a resolution that purports to nullify the report

of Committee of Supply and refer vote 70 back to the committee for

reconsideration. What does it mean to refer vote 70 back? Well, it

means that the estimates of the minister's entire office will be

reconsidered, and not left reduced to one dollar, which is not a

reduction or a penalty to the minister, whose salary is covered by the

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, but is instead a very

unhappy effect on the people who work in that office — the public

servants, the four employees who work there and who are victims of this

process. It is a reasonable motion to refer that back to

reconsideration.

I'm sure the members opposite, if they were seeking simply to

express lack of confidence in the minister, which they didn't do by

their motion, would not have reduced his entire office to one dollar,

but would simply have dealt with the minister's salary — which they

didn't do. So I know that they'll want to reconsider this, and I know

that they'll want this to go back to committee, and they won't want the

four public servants to be victimized and singled out; I know that. I

know that when they search their hearts, that's the view that they'll

take.

I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), with

his usual lightness of touch. He has about as much sense of humour as a

hippopotamus in a swimming pool.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: No. But to say, Mr. Speaker, that the vote

here reflects confidence or lack of confidence in the government or a

minister, when what it does is to impinge only upon public servants, by

reason of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, which

deals with the minister, is really a specious argument. I would urge

them to reflect. Let's get back to Committee of Supply and deal with

vote 70, and put this other matter behind us. We've had a great deal of

fun and discussion about it, I'm sure.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: I guess that that really goes to the heart of

the matter. The Attorney-General described the defeat of the government

as political chicanery, and now he talks about it being fun. We're not

here for fun, Mr. Speaker; we're here to do the people's business.

We're here in what I think draws from the finest parliamentary

traditions by which people have ever agreed and consented, and that is

what government is about: those who govern subject to the willingness

of the people to obey. And that is the paraphrasing of something else

that might be found in Sir Erskine May in some of the earlier editions

— subject to the will of the people. What we're talking about here is

the will of the people.

Mr. Speaker, parliament is a very fragile institution compared to a

republican system, which is nailed down, spelled out, checks, balances;

three levels of power, usually at both the federal as well as the state

level. In this institution we call on one person to form a government.

It's winner take all. It is the absolute right to rule for a mandate of

usually five years. We do not have the checks and balances, but we hope

that in the balance of that kind of rigid system, we have a thing

called responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could more have abrogated responsibility than

when that person who was chosen by his party to get the call from His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to form a government, in the middle of a

legislative session announced that he was stepping down and arranged

that a leadership contest should take place within his party, while

most of his members were bound in this House. Yet his hand-picked

successor was free to go out and organize and take over. That is why we

had that vote the other day. That is why vote 70 failed in this House:

because of that abrogation of parliamentary responsibility, where when

you are chosen to

[ Page 8767 ]

be Premier of this province, you are the Premier of

the province, and you have to put your party second. You have to think

about the people; you have to think about continuity; you have to think

about the responsibility which rests entirely on your shoulders.

This system in which we work.... We come here, we think that it is

somehow.... It takes us a long time to catch on and find out that there

is a very simple principle in here. This system does not work when

people put their own self-interest ahead of the interest of parliament.

This system breaks down when we cling to power in the face of

parliamentary defeat. This system is a mystique. We know that we can

study these books and we can learn how the system has evolved, but we

know that emotion such as this can be brought in to undo that which was

done, and no more parliamentary authority given to justify that than to

say that we made a phone call to Westminster.

You know, why should we bother to read these? I would hope that the

next Speaker of the House, whoever that should be, would rest easy

knowing that we don't need any Clerks. We can phone the Clerks in

Westminster, or we can say that we phoned the Clerks in Westminster,

and everything will be all right. Ignore citations; ignore the system.

It is a mystique. Unfortunately, by this act today, by this motion, we

shed away more of that mystique. People will hold politicians in Canada

and will hold our system in lower esteem than they have ever held it

before. I hope not much lower than before, but it will certainly not

serve to improve the esteem. It will not serve to maintain the mystique

of what I have thought has been a very workable system.

This brings us closer to the situation, which existed in the Philippines, and it is one step at a time.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the election of Marcos was seen as a

great victory about 20 years ago, but this is the way that you get

there, one step at a time, and we are taking away.... If this

government had called an election as did W.A.C. Bennett when his

government was defeated, well, I would no longer be here; but perhaps

the institution of parliament would still be here and it would be

strengthened rather than diminished. This government has done nothing

to enhance the institution of parliament.

When this government is gone, it will be remembered mostly for the

fact that it hacked and chipped and chiselled away at the institution

of parliament, and it always put itself first — always. It will be

characterized by the lack of resignations that should have taken place

or resignations that take place immediately followed by being put back

into cabinet. It will be symbolized by this particular defeat, and I

think it will be symbolized by the fact that the person who accepted

the responsibility of leading this province for five years turned his

back on that responsibility, not in the middle of the term but in the

middle of a sitting of the Legislature, and created the chaos which led

to the defeat on vote 70.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't believe I have ever heard such

righteous indignation in all my life. You know, we're dealing with an

issue here. There is absolutely no question about the fact that the

actions on Thursday were an embarrassment. But I want to tell you they

were an embarrassment to the members of the opposition; they were not

an embarrassment to the people in the Social Credit ranks. Every debate

in this House is important. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine grown, elected

people hiding in tunnels, hiding in their offices, to purposely plan

and plot some sort of destruction of a government? I can tell the

members of the opposition that the people in my constituency of Surrey

certainly look with disdain on the members of the NDP and the antics of

their representatives in this House.

I must respond to comments made by the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke). They cannot go unanswered. Words spoken in this House by

members of the opposition, words of insult to government members, are

never repeated in the hallways because they have no basis in fact. Only

cowards use their legislative privilege to make statements against

other members which if otherwise stated could result in legal action.

Are we not here to do the people's business? Is that not what we

were elected to do? I would suggest that we get on with the job that we

were elected to do. Certainly I take pleasure in supporting this motion

so that we can carry out the job we were elected to do.

[11:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke will be asking leave to make an introduction.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MICHAEL: I would like to introduce to you a class

visiting the assembly today from Hillcrest School in the community of

Salmon Ann, along with their teacher, John Lucas. I would ask the House

to make them welcome.

MS. BROWN: I think before I start I should clarify some

points for the last person who spoke, the first member for Surrey. I'm

very happy to do this in the hall. First of all, there were no MLAs in

the tunnel. If she'd like me to repeat that in the hall, I will be very

happy to do that. Secondly, there was no agreement with the Whip that

was broken.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold it! Order, please.

MS. BROWN: There was no agreement with the Whip which was

broken, and I am prepared to say that in the hall too. I cannot,

because of the rules of this Legislature, call the government Whip a

liar. I can't do it in here because of the rules, but I'd be very happy

to do it in the hall, because in fact, Mr. Speaker.,that is the

situation. However, the opposition Whip is quite capable of speaking

for himself and he will repeat that — and I know he has — in the hall.

I am concerned that what we are doing here — this precedent which we

are establishing as a result of the government's majority being able to

force through this motion — is a further erosion of the parliamentary

process and the parliamentary system in this province. What this

precedent about to be established means is that on any occasion when

the government is defeated by a vote that it's unhappy with, the

government can turn around and move a motion saying that the vote did

not happen. What we are really seeing, if it is carried to its

ridiculous ends, as this leadership race continues, is that the

government can maintain one person in this House, that's all, be

defeated on every vote and then turn

[ Page 8768 ]

around and put a notice of motion on the order

paper, and after the two days have passed, bring its majority in and

have any lost vote overturned.

It's not possible for democracy to survive, it's not possible for

the parliamentary system to survive, under those circumstances. The

point of order raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

was a very valid one. It should not be permissible for the House to

turn around and undo a vote that has already been dealt with by the

House. That's a very dangerous precedent.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), aided

and abetted by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), would like to

pretend....

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, I certainly appreciate that

every member of this House might well wish to debate this issue. But

for the last ten minutes or so I have been hearing debate from this

member that can only be construed, in my opinion, as tedious and

certainly repetitious. I wonder if in fact the tenor of her remarks is

in breach of our standing rule 43.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you consider that the member is suggesting closure?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are two items here. All members are

aware of standing order 43, which deals with tedious and repetitious

debate. The Chair is certain at this time that the member is carrying

on in good faith. I haven't heard anything to offend that standing

order at this point.

With respect to the member for New Westminster's comment, the member

clearly indicated standing order 43, not standing order 46, which is

the closure standing order. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds continues.

MR. BROWN: Thank you very much for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

In fact none of the other speakers raised the point about the

precedent-setting nature of this motion and the dangers of it. Of

course, one would not expect the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Parks) to understand that. But aside from the precedent-setting

nature of this motion — which is so serious that I can't say it often

enough, whether it's tedious and repetitious or not — the question has

been asked in a number of editorials in various newspapers,

specifically the Vancouver Sun

of Saturday. Where were the 16 members of the government when the

estimates, dealing with funds for the Minister of Tourism...when a vote

of non-confidence — because it was a confidence vote, and it was

dealing with money...? Where were they when that vote was taken?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know how many members there are; you can't count.

MS. BROWN: Well, first of all, I have the Votes and Proceedings

here, which shows that 19 government members were in the House. One

member is a Speaker; that's 20, and the rest of them were not here.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, 15 members. Let's quibble over one member. Where were the 15 members?

I think the editorial in the Vancouver Sun of June 14 is worth reading into the record:

"The Social Credit government has only itself and its

outgoing leader to blame for its ignominious defeat in the Legislature.

The Socreds can huff and bluster, complain about New Democratic Party

tactics, and offer all the excuses they want — but there's no escaping

the fact that they were outvoted on a supply measure and it was because

of their own ineptitude."

I would like to add to that "and the incompetence of their Whip."

"Giving themselves a belated vote of confidence can't

save them from the mortification of being a loser with a 12-seat

majority."

As we know, it's a 15-seat majority.

"Constitutional experts seem to agree the defeat of

the government in committee is not cause for resignation. Even if it

were, no one familiar with Social Credit's record of respect for

parliamentary tradition over the last 34 years would really expect one.

If the Socred government really respected the Legislature, it wouldn't

have allowed 13 of its 34 caucus members to be absent in the first

place.

"This is what comes of treating the Legislature with

contempt by holding a party leadership race while the House is still

sitting. Of the six declared candidates, leadership candidates in the

Socred caucus, only two, Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy and Cliff

Michael, were present for the vote.

"But whom should the Socreds finger as the cause of

their embarrassment — the four other leadership hopefuls who were off

campaigning...or Premier Bill Bennett, who threw in the towel and

announced his retirement before the Legislature had finished its work?

Mr. Bennett must have known it would be difficult to keep the

leadership candidates from the caucus down on the farm in Victoria,

especially while a front runner — his former secretary, Bud Smith — was

out campaigning around the province, unburdened by public

responsibility.

"Where was the lame-duck premier, anyway? Was his hand

on the tiller? Was he there for the vote? No, he was grand-standing in

Vancouver, seeking to secure the dream of the Site C Dam as part of his

political legacy. So this is the way the Bennett era ends — not with a

bang but with a whimper."

MR. CHAIRMAN: One item, hon. members. The House is well aware

that a member's name cannot be used even if one is quoting a newspaper

article. Please refer to the office they hold or the riding they

represent. Secondly, the House will well remember that the term

"lame-duck" was found to be out of order. I'm sure the members of the

opposition are well aware of the Chair censuring that term when it was

used by other members. So I would remind the House that that term, in

my estimation, is out of order.

MS. BROWN: I would like to withdraw the words "lame duck."

And the names which were used directly in the quote: I would be very

happy to refer to the minister, the Provincial Secretary and the

back-bencher, rather than using their names.

[ Page 8769 ]

The point I want to raise is that it doesn't make any sense to

scapegoat the incompetent and inept government Whip. The real architect

of the government's defeat was the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a reference to a member, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Government Whip?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the adjectives that preceded.

MS. BROWN: Incompetent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: Okay. What I'm saying is that the tendency on the

government's part.... Incidentally, not one government member, neither

cabinet nor back bench, has risen yet to speak in defence of the

minister. However, that's incidental.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, the Attorney-General spoke on the motion, but he didn't speak in defence of the minister.

HON. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did you not ask for a withdrawal from the member?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard the member say yes.

HON. R. FRASER: I didn't hear it. I just wondered if she would repeat it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is satisfied.

I realize this debate has a tendency to be somewhat heated, but I

would remind all members of the House that we should use courtesy and

parliamentary language that's above calling each other names.

MS. BROWN: My point is that the scapegoating of the

government Whip is not the way this matter should be handled. Of course

the government Whip failed. The government Whip did not count the

numbers; the government Whip did not ensure that there were sufficient

of his colleagues here to win that vote. But that's not where the blame

should be laid. Ultimately the Premier of the province, the leader of

the government, is the person who is responsible, not the government

Whip.

The opposition does not want to become a part of this scapegoating

of the government Whip, but would like to go back to placing the blame

squarely where it was laid by the editorial in the Sun , squarely where it was laid by editorials in the Province

and in other newspapers: with the failure of that government leader to

show respect for the parliamentary process and for the Legislature. The

defeat of the government on that vote and their response to that defeat

is a further step in the erosion of the parliamentary process and of

respect for the Legislature and for the work of elected members in this

province, and that, Mr. Speaker, is one of the dangerous aspects of

this motion which is now belatedly being brought to the floor of this

House by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

The reality of the fact is that the government was defeated on a

confidence motion on a money vote, and that's a reality which no motion

is going to change. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs can use all kinds of procedures — use or abuse, as the case may

be — but that's not going to change that reality. This government was

defeated on a confidence motion on a money issue, and this government

refused to resign. That is the fact and that is reality, which no

motion is going to change.

[11:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but

having listened to the debate so far from the opposite side of the

House, where they talk about the Philippines and self interest and so

on and so forth, I believe that the opposition should realize that the

public out there do not support you and your idea that their business

should be conducted by trickery or by hide-and-seek tactics.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we did witness last Thursday

was the one and only time when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Skelly) was able to get his crew together — pardon me, his caucus

together. That is the one and only time that they have been able to do

that, and why were they able to do that? Because here was a little game

that they had set up where they could attempt to embarrass the

government. All one has to do is take a look at Hansard .

Take a look at the record. Take a took at their attendance. All around

that day how many of the opposition were in this House for votes? We

see 10 members, 11 members, 12 members. Out of eight votes we had no

more than 14 of those members sitting in this House. They got down to

as many as ten. And all one has to do is look at the records over this

session to find out just exactly how serious they are about the

business of this House.

But then again, Mr. Speaker, there's one very important thing that

is missing in all of the debate, and that is the question of trust. Mr.

Speaker, we do have Whips on each side of this House who, I understand,

do get together and agree on certain things in the conducting of the

business of the House. I am assured that indeed there was an agreement

that certain individuals would not be here. If one looks at the record,

it's quite easy to understand that if indeed you have any trust in them

at all, then there's no reason why you shouldn't have had trust on that

day. That is where it went wrong. It's not a question of how the

business of the government should be done or anything else; it's

strictly a question of trust.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order is that the minister is making

a statement which he knows not to be true and which has been dealt with

many times before, and he should not be permitted to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will take his place. That is not a

point of order. If the member for Skeena wishes to rise and participate

in the debate, he has every opportunity to do so. I see he has not

spoken yet.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has? Pardon me. All right.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I was not party to the

discussions between the Whips at all. However, the actions of the

opposition would cause me to believe that indeed there

[ Page 8770 ]

was a trust broken. All one has to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at Hansard ;

it's right there. Look at your record of attendance all through this

whole session. Look at your record of attendance during the debates on

some of the most important ministries of this government. How was your

attendance then? Absolutely deplorable. No interest whatsoever. A

sinking ship, Mr. Speaker, that suddenly became awake on Thursday when

they thought they had an opportunity to embarrass this government. A

ship where half of the members just don't care; not around half the

time, and that's the way it goes. Then we see an opportunity where not

only can we continue our practice of breaking trust, but we see an

opportunity here to embarrass the government. Well, certainly it was

embarrassing. But believe me, I am not at all concerned about some

little bit of embarrassment that is caused by people who have broken a

trust. That's what it's all about. The sooner this House can start to

rely on each other, the sooner that our Whip can come to our caucus and

say yes, this is the way it is for today and we can depend on that, the

sooner the people's business will be done in this House.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one out there

listening to all of this gobbledegook of yours about the Philippines

and about self-interest and so on and so forth. You're an absolute

disgrace. The only time that your leader has been able to bring you all

together was whenever there was an opportunity to break a trust with

our Whip and come in here and attempt to embarrass the government.

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion wholeheartedly, and I would

suggest that after over an hour and a half of debate — nonsense debate

— we get on with the business of the people.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will come to order.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

mentions trust. He hasn't said anything about honour or integrity, or

anything like that, but I think he implies all of those things. I'd

just like to say that I agree that this chamber works better if people

trust one another. But I was quite glad when the government was

defeated last Thursday afternoon, because I've had three years — and

I've had it up to here — with ministers being away on so-called

government business so we can't even conduct a question period. I also

recall that when we were having our leadership convention you kept us

tied up here all you could. We have ministers in the House not even

coming in here for question period because they anticipate a question,

and we have to ring the division bells.

You talk about trust. Day after day our Whip tells us what the order

of business will be. And then we come in and we find it's all changed.

We are assured that the business of the House will be such and such,

and then when we get in here.... And when we ask about it, the Whip

will say: "Well, I was overruled by the House Leader." Or the House

Leader will say: "The minister wouldn't come in" — or something like

that.

We've been betrayed on a matter of trust not once or twice or three times. But when you got caught...

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It is true.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It is true.

MR. ROSE: Shut up, you guys — both of you.

...your way out was to say: "Oh, well, the NDP betrayed us." Not

that the NDP outsmarted you. No, your excuse is that if this had been

an honourable place, this wouldn't have happened to you. Your ministers

are out chasing votes; there weren't enough of them here. If I had to

make a choice between — and I wouldn't like to — taking the word of the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and that of the member for

Surrey....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold it just a moment. I'll remind the hon.

member that all members are equal and they're all honourable. Any

comparison would be odious and unacceptable.

MR. ROSE: I would suggest to you that they're both honourable members, but I would have my own preference if I had to make a choice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. ROSE: There has never been an undertaking on behalf of

our party in terms of pairing or anything else to hold back our vote

that I can recall.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, when a member of this side of the House is

away in excess of ten days, it costs him $250; but when the ministers

are away day after day and week after week, they're on government

business. I could be away on government business as much as the

minister, snipping a ribbon somewhere, and it would still cost me $250.

The rules around here are stacked in favour of the government. Let

nobody be in doubt about that.

They lost an important one and they're going to use — you'll like

this, Mr. House Leader — the tyranny of the majority to get them out of

a scrape. Someone else mentioned earlier that standing order 1

absolutely repudiates the authorities of the House of Commons of

Canada. You were part of that committee, sir. You know that I tried to

have Beauchesne as a reference point for precedents that were not

covered in either May, the British House of Commons or any other

legislature. I was overruled. So any kind of precedent or ruling based

on Mitchell Sharp's inability to count — never mind the member for

Surrey's inability to count — does not apply in this chamber. It

doesn't.

Now there are ways to get out of this, and I don't need to assist

the government any more than the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) did. The first thing would be a motion or a resolution to get

back into Supply. Then there should be a supplementary estimate bill

come into this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on a point of order.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, surely the comments of the hon.

member are now reflecting on a previous ruling of the Chair. We're not

discussing whether or not this motion is in

[ Page 8771 ]

order. He is not discussing the merits of the motion before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would have to agree with that point, hon.

member. If the member for Coquitlam-Moody wishes to speak to the Chair

on a point of order, that would be fine; but you have entered into the

debate and we should be relevant to the motion 71 before us now, not

points of order.

MR. ROSE: I am not reflecting on the Chair. I'm discussing

the merits of the procedure that has been ruled upon so that

ultimately, when this thing is resolved, it will be resolved

unquestionably in terms of procedural matters. That's all I'm

suggesting.

Anyway, I'm through with this pretty well. I enjoyed it. You had it

coming. You deserved it. There was a lot of incompetence here and the

thought that nobody would have the audacity to try to defeat this band

of courageous men and women across the hall from me. You deserved it,

you had it coming and you're going to have it coming in the next

election too.

HON. R. FRASER: I'm pleased to join in this debate to support

the motion by our House Leader, in fact to remind all of you that you

should as well do that, and to point out to the members opposite that

constitutional experts agree with the decision of this side of the

House, in that a motion taken in committee is not a motion of

non-confidence. Speak to some of the experts, as you already have.

Also you would recognize that a motion of a committee can be

overruled by a motion of the House — obviously a very acceptable

procedure. No doubt about that either. When we look at what the Premier

was doing when he was not here, in fact he was out in the community

creating jobs as he always has, as he always will, always doing what is

in the interest of the people, irrespective of whether it's a five-year

term or a two and a half-year term, just like all the other ministers

in the government, Mr. Speaker.

Now the critical thing is this, as I see it....

AN HON. MEMBER: The sunset clause.

HON. R. FRASER: The sunset clause. You may be looking at some

sunsets sooner than I will, Mr. Member across the table. I'm very

pleased about.... And you, sit, might be as well. The one back there

who's chirping away, you might have a better chance, but I think the

first two I spoke to are going to be losers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you looking for a lifeboat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

HON. R. FRASER: Well, if it isn't the bird from Victoria.

What occurs to me, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that in fact the

opposition had more people in the House than we did, but if they'd

really wanted to press it and take it into the House they probably

could have brought the government down. But they didn't. And one has to

ask: why didn't they? They just left it in committee. They didn't want

an election, or they could have had one. That day. Our members were in

Prince George and had no hope of getting back in time for a vote.

There was not one single hope. Did they bring the government down in

the middle of the night on June the whatever? No, they didn't, because

they didn't want an election that day or any other day. And we can't

wait for one, as a matter of fact. It'll be coming soon enough for you,

because if you want it....

Interjections.

HON. R. FRASER: Well, they cheer and they yell like they did

last week. But if they wanted an election they would have brought us

down last week, and they didn't do it.

Now we can get on to pairing if you like. I don't mind pairing. We

can do that. It's in the rules. If you're paired you're not here, you

can't vote. We can do that some other day.

Interjection.

HON. R. FRASER: Well, as a matter of fact, you know, we

should have more people in the House all the time. There's no doubt

about that. We have to do that. But that party over there, the party of

self-interest groups, will never lead. They cheered last week and they

cheered today, but they'll never lead. The motion they should support

today they won't support. And this government, no matter what we do, is

always thinking of the people, always looking for jobs, always looking

for new ways, always willing to take a second look and always going to

be leading.

[11:45]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister indicates we could have brought

the government down, but I also would like to bring forward the point

that it was because of the incompetence of the people on that side,

that they could have talked the debate out past the adjournment time

and brought it back the next day. It was mistakes on that side of the

House. But that's a minor point in all the hubbub of those dying

moments.

The point I want to make is that all the huff and all the bluster

that we've heard from the members on that side of the House over the

past few days is no excuse. There's no escaping the fact that this

government was outvoted on a supply measure and it was outvoted because

of their own ineptitude and their own incompetence — the fact that they

weren't paying attention to the business of this House, to the business

of the Legislature. They had ministers running all over the

countryside. They could not even muster enough support to get a

majority vote on an important matter of confidence in the minister's

spending estimates. Now they're attempting to belatedly give themselves

a vote of approval, but I say they can't. They can't save themselves

from the embarrassment and the mortification that they lost a vote of

confidence.

Plainly, clearly and simply you guys lost because you weren't paying

attention to what was going on in this House; you weren't paying

attention to the people's business, and we had to bring you to task on

that. It's as simple as that. It's a demonstration, Mr. Speaker, of the

disdain that this government has for the business of the Legislature. A

majority government — a 12-seat difference — defeated on a vote

concerning spending estimates, defeated on a vote of non-confidence.

More interested in chasing the leadership trail than in carrying on the

people's business in this chamber. Where was your leader the other day?

Where were all the

[ Page 8772 ]

cabinet ministers who should have been here voting on that issue?

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I want to say very clearly, Mr. Chairman,

that those weren't childish games. That vote was a very serious matter.

This minister has not obeyed the law; that's why it was a serious

matter. This minister has proven himself to be in contempt of this

parliament. He has not obeyed the law.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Both references to the minister will be withdrawn or the member will withdraw.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the fact that the member is outside the rule of law.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I withdraw the statement.

Mr. Speaker, the vote signifies the lack of confidence that the

members on this side of the House have in this minister's office. I

want to go on record as saying that we will fully support vote 71 when

it does come up, because we fully support the concept of a vibrant

tourism industry. The reason we did not support vote 70 on the

minister's office is because he has not obeyed the rule of legislation,

which demands....

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: We did not support the vote on the minister's

office because the minister has not submitted information that has been

requested over the past year, has not submitted the information

required under the Financial Information Act, and because of that his

office is in violation of established legislation. The minister has

knowingly violated that legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That last comment must be withdrawn.

MR. MacWILLIAM: "Knowingly violated"?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Please withdraw.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. "Knowingly violated" is an offensive remark.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the minister, whether knowingly or unknowingly....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw "knowingly violated."

MR. MacWILLIAM: I withdraw the statement. But I say that

whether the minister did it knowingly or unknowingly, there is a

violation of legislation here.

I had no recourse but to charge the minister with a vote of

non-confidence. I was simply doing my job in conducting the business of

the people of British Columbia, by ensuring that the minister was

brought to task for things that have not been accomplished.

I want to say once again that my colleagues and I will fully support

funding for the Ministry of Tourism. We fully support the employees

within the minister's office. But we do not support the directions that

the minister has taken in refusing to abide by the rules of legislation

and refusing to accommodate our requests. Until he does so, we will not

be able to support the vote for his office.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to rise to support this

motion. I'm going to take issue with some of my colleagues in that I

don't think they have been prepared to give credit where credit is due.

We were outsmarted by the NDP. They caught us because throughout this

whole session we were under the impression that they were here to

discuss the people's business, to discuss issues, to discuss

legislation, that they were really concerned about that. What we didn't

realize was that from, I think, the start of this session their

strategy was to find opportunities to embarrass the government, to

embarrass members individually — whether by truth or fiction, to find

some way to embarrass the government. This fight, as their member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, their basic function is to oppose

everything that goes on in this province, everything that government

does. He said: "We cannot be helpful; our job is to oppose." Despite

their opposition, the economy has been growing; despite their

opposition, the social programs have been going on; despite their

opposition, Expo has been turning out a success. So obviously the

strategy had to be: since we cannot attack this government through

policies or through philosophy, we have got a strategy. And can't you

picture the Leader of the Opposition getting them together and saying:

"Look, we have only two or three months in the session, and we've got

to do a setup, and that setup has to work. Now we're going to have to

very carefully decide when to pull the trigger."

If you want some numbers, look at how carefully the trap was planned. If you go back to the Votes and Proceedings ,

you find that in the early stages of this session, such as on March 25

and 27, you had something like 17 or 18 of their members in the House.

Then you go to May 13 and you have 15 of their members on a vote. Then

you get to April 15 and 16 — I'm only taking a few of the votes here —

and it's down to 14. Now the trap is being very carefully laid. The

numbers are going down, and you can see that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps I'm overrating you, but I see this

as a brilliant strategy. You know, lacking any good philosophy, lacking

any good policies to deal with issues in this province, you had to have

something. Here is something that shows up.

Then on June 4 — notice the plot sickens — we have on five votes 14,

12, 13, 13 and 12 opposition members here in this House. As they say,

the respect for this Legislature is indicated by attendance in this

House. Now, somehow or other, last Thursday they were able to muster 21

members at the end of the day. However, during the day their expression

of respect for this House was 11 members, and then 10 members on two

previous votes. Now you have to give them credit. And then to send

their deputy Whip to negotiate with

[ Page 8773 ]

our Whip to give the impression that their Whip

wasn't here — that has got to be brilliant, I'll tell you. If you want

some more indications of brilliance, they talk about attendance in this

House. Well, right from the beginning of the session they have had a

deliberate strategy of boring to death everybody on this side with the

same negative comments, so it was either sleep in the House or go and

do some work in your office. That has to be another touch of

brilliance. This strategy, which I guess has been developed by your new

leader, has to be brilliant: "We can't beat them on policy, we can't

beat them on economics; somehow or other we've got to develop a

strategy to embarrass them somewhere along the line."

I was pleased that the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam)

said that this vote last Thursday was not a childish game. This was a

serious matter, obviously part of their total strategy. Then, as

serious as that matter was on Thursday, he says we're more interested

in our personal business — going around the province with our personal

interests foremost — and he makes this big ploy on Thursday; then on

Friday he leaves because he takes long weekends. In other words, he

wasn't here to follow up.

Talk about strategy. I think you do have to give them full credit in

that their leader developed a strategy that said: "Never mind the

issues. Never mind the economic measures in this province. Never mind

all that because the Socreds can beat us all the way, so let us find

one way to embarrass them. Then we can go to the people and say:

'That's leadership.' We can take two to three months to find one moment

to embarrass the government by setting it up very carefully, even

hiding in the hallways." You think only 10 or 11 people were here

during the day, and yet supposedly there were 21 in these precincts.

That's respect for the House, Mr. Speaker. That's a wonderful strategy.

So they say: "Please, people of British Columbia, ignore the

economics, ignore all of those good things that are happening. Please

show us. Vote for leadership that was able to...." Despite all the good

legislation, despite all the economic things going in this province,

despite the success of Expo, that leader says to the people: "Vote for

me because I was able to trap them in one moment of carelessness."

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) requested a specific citation, and I

would refer him to May's sixteenth edition, pages 740 and 741

specifically, to refer to the Chair's decision.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:00 noon.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada